Good soldiers and good actors: The influence of motivation and culture on the

outcomes of organisational citizenship behaviours

Aurora Watters, BSe., MSe

Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

February 2012

Abstract

Past research on organisational citizenship behaviours (OeBs) has often prescribed to a

number of preconceived assumptions predominately focmed on the positive aspects of

OeB performance. Using a sequential mixed-method approach. this thesis tests some of

these assumptions considering whether researchers, organisations and other stakeholder

should subscribe to the notion that OeBs are always positive. Specifically. the thesis

examines how OeBs are conceptualised by the employees who cxperielH.:e them in their

organisational lives and the extent that culture plays in performance and outcomes of

OCB. Study one interviewed five British and five Asian participants on their experiences

and conceptualisation of OCBs. The interviews were analysed using the Grounded Theory

approach which allowed two main theories to emerge from the data. Firstly. congruence

or incongruence of employee and supervisor perceptions of oeB as in or extra role effect~

the motivation, performance and outcomes. Secondly, employees perform impression

management motivated OeBs to facilitate the obtainment of their goals. In addition.

cultural differences between the responses of the British and Asian participants were

found, suggesting a more complex cultural relationship. Based on these findings, the

second study presented OCB and impression management scenarios to 64 British

participants and 70 Indonesian participants. The results of this study found that

participants were able to distinguish between OCB and impression management

behaviours. In addition, the perception of these behaviours as oeB or impression

management affected the outcome of the behaviours. British participants' ratings of the

effect of OCB and impression management behaviours were found to be more distinct

than their Indonesian counterparts, suggesting that Indonesian employees may be more

accepting of their co-workers performance of impression management behaviours. The

final study examined the relationship between OCB motives, performance and outcomes

of OCB performance by 141 Indonesian employees. Results showed that prosocial

motives predicted the performance of affiliative and challenging behaviours; however

other OCB motives did not predict OCB performance. In addition, affiliative and

challenging behaviours predicted positive outcomes for employees, while compulsory

11

citizenship behaviours were associated with negative outcomes. Collectivists and

individualists were found to react in converse manners to the performance of affiliative

and challenging behaviours. The findings of this thesis found some support for the basic

assumptions of OCBs; however, the findings also found contradictions to the assumptions,

as well as identifying cultural differences in the conceptualisation, performance amI

outcomes to OCB performance.

iii

Acknowledgement

There are many people I would like to acknowledge and thank for supporting me during

these last several years. However, they are too many to mention here, and I apologise for

not mentioning you all by name.

I would like to thank God for seeing me through from birth to this present time and

making me a stronger person in my faith, and for always showing me the correct path to

foIIow.

While thanking God, I must include the Cathsoc Community and especially my Parish

Priest Rev Fr Chris Thomas. All of you have been my surrogate family while I have lived

in the UK on my own. Thank you for providing me with a hot meal when I desperately

needed one and most of all, listening to me and allowing me to vent when I needed to.

I would like to thank my Dad for aII his encouragement through the years; for our dinner

discussions about politics, the secret service, alI things Scottish and life in general. I thank

you Dad for always being proud of me and showing off the best photograph of me to

anyone around! Your constant pride in me has made me want to achieve more for myself

always.

I thank my Mum for not only being my mother, but my friend as welI. Thank you for

dropping everything to be with me whenever I needed you, for your special hugs and most

of all listening to me.

IV

Thank you Dad and Mum for laboriously reading my work with all my dyslexic mistakes.

I would not have even attended university had it not been for your belief in me together

with the encouragement that I, as a dyslexic, could achieve my goals.

I must also thank my extended family for their constant words of encouragement and

belief in me, especially both my grandmothers. I know my Granddad would have been so

proud of me.

Last, and by no means least, I would like to thank lain Coyne for his mentoring, guidance

and encouragement. Our meetings were always productive; he stimulated me

academically and with great tact directed me towards the relevance of theories that I was

seeking to justify.

Following the Indonesian custom, I would now like to apologise to anyone who I have

untowardly hurt in any way or form not only during the time I have spent here in

Nottingham. but during my past life.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i i

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xii

Chapter I ........................................................................................................................ I

Introduction to Organisational Citizenship behaviours ................................................. I

Organ and the development of Organisational Citizenship hchaviour~ .......................... 2

Non self-serving motives for OCB performance .......................................................... 6

Impression Management ......................................................................................... 7

OCB as discretionary behaviours ................................................................................ ()

OCB in-role behaviours or extra role behaviours ..................................................... ()

OCB is discretionary ............................................................................. ............... 10

OCB facilitates effective functioning ......................................................................... 12

Empirical evidence of OCBs effect on organisational performance ........................ 12

OCB detracting from organisational effectiveness ................................................. \3

OCB benefits the employees .... ................................................................................. 14

Escalating OCB .................................................................................................... 15

Overload and OCB ............................................................................................... 16

Constructive deviant behaviours .......................................... ...................................... 18

Aims of the research ................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................................... 21

The Influence of Culture ........................................................................................... 21

The Cultural Bias in Psychology ........................................................................... 21

What is Culture? .................................................................... .............................. 23

Hofstede's cultural typologies ............................................................... ................ 25

VI

Individualism- Collectivism framework ................................................................ 30

Individualism and Collectivism as Individual Differences ..................................... 31

Individualism-Collectivism and the Organisation .................................................. 33

The importance of Asian culture ........................................................................... 36

Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 38

Methodology ............................................................................................................ 38

Research Methods in Psychology .............................................................................. 38

Quantitative and Qualitative approaches ................................................................ 38

Mixed Methods .................................................................................................... 41

Thesis Methodology Rationale .................................................................................. 44

Study I - Methodology Rationale ............................................................................. 45

Grounded Theory ................................................................................................. 46

Literature Review ................................................................................................. 48

Data Collection and Theoretical Sampling ............................................................. 49

Open Coding. Categories and Constant Comparison .............................................. 51

Theoretical Memo Writing .................................................................................... 52

Development of Theory ........................................................................................ 53

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Grounded Theory ............................................. 54

Study 2 - Methodology Rationale ............................................................................. 57

Quasi Experimental Design ................................................................................... 57

Study 3 - Methodological Rationale .......................................................................... 59

Correlational Studies ............................................................................................ 59

Additional methodological issues for Study 2 and Study 3 ......................................... 61

Questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 61

Devising a Good Questionnaire ............................................................................. 62

Response Scales ................................................................................................... 63

vii

Issues within Questionnaires Development ............................................................ 63

Establishing Reliability and Validity ..................................................................... 65

Issues with Translation ......................................................................................... 67

E-Research ........................................................................................................... 68

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 69

Chapter 4 ...................................................................................................................... 71

Employees' conceptualisations and experiences of organizational citizenship

behaviours ................................................................................................................ 71

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 71

Aim of Study ............................................................................................................ 73

Method ..................................................................................................................... 74

Design and methodology ...................................................................................... 74

Sample ................................................................................................................. 74

Procedure ............................................................................................................. 75

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 77

Results ..................................................................................................................... 77

OCB as extra-role or in-role behaviours ................................................................ 78

When OCB is seen as extra-role by both manager and employee ........................... 78

When OCB is seen as extra-role by employees and in-role by their managers ........ 81

When OCB is seen as in-role by both employee and supervisor ............................. 85

Overlap between citizenship behaviours and impression managemcnt.. .................. 86

Discussion ................................................................................................................ 91

Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................... 103

Employees' perceptions of other 'good soldiers' and 'good actors' .......................... 103

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 103

Method ................................................................................................................... III

Sample ............................................................................................................... III

viii

Measures ............................................................................................................ I I I

Procedure ........................................................................................................... I I 3

Results ................................................................................................................... 114

Discussion .............................................................................................................. 120

Chapter 6 .................................................................................................................... 129

The interaction of motives. citizenship behaviours and outcomes in individualist and

collectivist employees ............................................................................................. 129

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 129

Motives of Organisational Citizenship Behaviours .............................................. 129

Dimensions of Citizenship behaviours ................................................................ 13 I

Employee Motivation and Citizenship Behaviours .... ........................................... 133

Motivation and Outcomes ................................................................................... 136

The effects of culture on motivation. performance and outcomes ......................... IJC)

Method ...................................................................... ............................................. 142

Sample ......................................................................... ...................................... 142

Measures .... ........................................................................................................ 142

Procedure ........................................................................................................... 144

Results .. ................................................................................................................ , 145

Discussion .............................................................................................................. 159

Chapter 7 ...... .............................................................................................................. 166

Discussion .............................................................................................................. 166

Organisational Citizenship Behaviours as extra role behaviours ........................... 167

OCBs are performed with non self-serving motives ............................................. 168

The performance of OCBs ultimately benefits the employee .... ............................ 170

OCBs facilitate effective organisational functioning ............................................ In

Contributions to the literature .............................................................................. 174

Strengths and Limitations ............................................................................ ....... 175

ix

Future Studies .................................................................................................... 177

Practical Implications ......................................................................................... 171)

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... I !SO

References .................................................................................................................. 1!S2

Appendix 1 ..................................................................... ............................................ 235

Appendix 2 ................................................................................................ ................. 237

x

List of Tables

Table I Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research Adapted from Johnson &

Onwuegbuzle (2004 ) ..................................................................................................... 39

Table 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative research adapted trom Johnson &

Onwuegbuzle (2004) ..................................................................................................... 41

Table 3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Methods research adapted li'om Johnson &

Onwuegbuzle (2004) ..................................................................................................... 43

Table 4 Mean Scores of participants' Ratings of the Scenarios as OCB or 1M across

country and cultural orientation ................................................................................... 114

Table 5 Mean scores of outcome ratings by UK and Indonesian participants ................ 115

Table 6 Mean scores of outcome ratings by Individualist and Collectivist participants .. 115

Table 7 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations .................................................. 147

Table 8 Hierarchical regression for motives as predictors of helping and voice ............. 14X

Table 9 Hierarchical regression for moti ves as predictors of helping ............................ 141)

Table 10 Hierarchical regression for motives and helping behaviours as predictors of job

satisfaction and job stress ............................................................................................ 151

Table II Hierarchical regression for motives and voice behaviours as predictors of job

satisfaction and job stress ............................................................................................ 152

Table 12 Hierarchical regression for motives as predictors of helping and voice ........... 154

Table 13 Hierarchical regression for collectivism, helping and voice behaviours as

predictors of job satisfaction and job stress .................................................................. 156

Xl

List of Figures

Figure I Sequential Exploration Strategy Design of Thesis ........................................... .45

Figure 2 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on ratings of Scenario behaviours ...... 117

Figure 3 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on ratings of the effect of Scenario

Behaviours on Organisational Performance ................................................................. I I g

Figure 4 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on Ratings of the Effect of Scenario

Behaviours on Other Employees ................................................................................. 119

Figure 5 Interaction Effect of Cultural Orientation on Ratings of the Effect of the Scenario

Behaviours on Other Employees ................................................................................. 119

Figure 6 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between helping and job

satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 155

Figure 7 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between voice and job

satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 157

Figure 8 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between helping and job

stress .......................................................................................................................... 158

Figure 9 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between voice and job

stress .......................................................................................................................... 158

xii

Chapter 1

Introduction to Organisational Citizenship behaviours

The way organisations function has undergone radical changes over the last century,

triggered by the advancement of technology, changes in legislation, globalisation and

other factors. Today's market has become intensely competitive, with organisations not

only competing with organisations within their own country but competing on a global

level. Countries that were previously considered 'less developed' have now become

emerging economies, providing cheaper products and services and not necessarily at the

cost of quality. These emerging economies have threatened many organisations, f()rcing

them to undergo radical changes to adapt to the changing markets. Globalisalion has

resulted in the free movement of labour, with people relocating for jobs and organisations

shifting production to reduce costs, creating culturally diverse work forces in

organisations. For organisations to survive in today's market place they must maintain a

competitive edge over other organisations. Mahoney and Pandain (1992) highlighted that

organisations perform effectively not because they possess better resources than their

competitors; rather that they are able to make better use of them. This means ensuring that

they are using their equipment to its full potential, reducing the cost of production, etc.

However for most organisations, one of its greatest resources is often not working to its

fullest potential, that being the organisation's human and social capital, its employees.

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) have suggested that an organisation's social capital is the

key to a sustainable competitive advantage over other organisations. Katz's (1964) paper

put forth the view that for organisations to be effective they need employees who go above

and beyond the call of duty, who do more than their formal job description. It is

presumably through this desire to improve organisational effectiveness that has led

researchers to investigate organisational citizenship behaviours over the last twenty years.

Organ and the development of Organisational Citizenship behaviours

Katz (1964) hypothesised that there were three types of behaviours that were essential for

the successful functioning of an organisation. Firstly, people decide to join and remain in

the organisation. Secondly, the employees perform their prescribed job roles in a reliable

manner. Finally, employees must display 'innovative' and 'spontaneous' behaviours that

go beyond their prescribed job role, which Katz named 'extra-role behaviours'. Speaking

on the last category, Katz believed that an organisation could not depend on employees

solely performing their prescribed job behaviours; every organisation was dependant on

the cooperation and goodwill gestures amongst their employees. Katz's concept of extra-

role behaviours was used by Organ (1977) as a means of explaining why earlier studies

had only found a weak relationship between employees' attitudes and work performance.

Organ believed that this modest relationship was due to situational constraints, such as

technology and work flow processes, that limited an employee's ability to modify their

performance of their prescribed in-role behaviours. Organ believed that employees were

more likely to express their attitudes through extra-role behaviours, as employees have

greater control over these behaviours. Drawing upon Katz's (1964) concept of extra-role

behaviours, Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith, Organ and Near (1983) developed the

construct of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). To support Organ's (1977)

hypothesis that job satisfaction was linked with job performance, Smith et al (1983)

sought to identify the behaviours that arise out of employee's job satisfaction. To achieve

this, Smith et al (1983) interviewed lower level managers at their organisation asking

them:

.. What kind of things do you like to hal'e people in your group do, hilt you know that you

can't actual(v force them to do. can't promise any tangible reward\'./iJr doing iI, and can 'I

punish them for not doing it?" (Organ, 1997, p. 93)

2

A pool of behaviours was created from the data collected from the interviews, and

managers were then asked to think of an employee who worked for them and rate how

characteristic each of the behaviours was for that employee. A factor analysis of these

ratings indicated two factors which were developed into the first two dimensions of

organisational citizenship behaviours. The first factor was labelled 'altruism', which they

defined as a type of helping behaviour which was aimed directly at a specific person

(Smith et ai, 1983). These included behaviours such as, helping a co-worker who had been

absent or helping to orientate new employees even though it was not required of them.

The second factor was labelled 'general compliance', which differed from altruism as it

was not directed at a specific person but rather doing things for the sake of the

organisation. General compliance included behaviours such as being punctual or not

engaging in idle chit chat; these behaviours encapsulated the norms associated with being

a good worker (lePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002).

Organ (\988) defined DeB as an "individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly

or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the

effective functioning of the organisation. By discretionary, we mean that the behaviour is

not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly

specifiable terms of the person's employment contract with the organisation; the

behaviour is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally

understood as punishable" (p.4). Organ presented the idea of a social exchange

relationship between the organisation and its employees. When the organisation's

practises resulted in favourable attitudes, the employee feels obligated to contribute back

to the organisation. Since there is little leeway within the job's formal requirements,

employees respond by displaying behaviours that lie outside of the formal reward

structure, namely with DeBs.

Five years after the development of the two dimension model of DeBs, Organ (1988)

expanded the original framework into a five dimension model. Along with the original

3

dimensions of altruism and general compliance (which is also known as

conscientiousness), Organ added courtesy, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Courtesy refers

to behaviours that prevent problems within the organisation. such as passing on

information that might be useful to co-workers. It can also include just checking with co­

workers before performing something that would affect their work. Organ postulated that

courtesy would benefit the flow of work especially on interdependent work activities and

help prevent arguments. Sportsmanship refers to employees tolerating the annoyances and

inconveniences of organisational life without "complaining ... railing against real or

imagined slights. and making a federal case out of small potatoes" (Organ, 19&&, p.II).

Finally, civic virtue refers to involvement in the political process of the organisation: that

the employee responsibly participates in organisational life. This includes expressing

opinions, reading and responding to mail, attendance at meetings and keeping up to dale

with organisational developments and issues.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) were some of the first researchers to

develop Organ's (1988) five dimension into a scale. which has been used in many

empirical studies of organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g. MacKenzie, Podsakotf &

Fetter, 1991; Moorman, 1991. 1993: Niehoff & Moorman. 1993). While many researchers

use Organ's (1988) five dimension model of OCB, other researchers have suggested other

ways to conceptualise the dimensions of OCBs. The second major conceptualization of

OCB was proposed by Williams and Anderson ( 1991). They proposed that OCBs should

be categorised on the basis of the direction or target of the behaviours. The first dimension

is that of OCB-O. behaviours that benefit the organisation in general. such as adhering to

the rules. The second dimension is that ofOCB-I. behaviours which benefit specific

individuals which in tum would contribute to the organisation. Williams and Anderson

(1991) developed the alternative conceptualisation of the division of OCB hecause they

felt that Organ's (1988) dimension of altruism and compliance contradicted his

conceptualisation of OCBs with regards to the behaviours not being rewarded. They

believed that compliance could be performed with the expectation of rewards or for the

avoidance of punishment.

4

Organ viewed the performance of OCBs by employees represented an investment in the

social environment of the organisation, supporting the 'psychological and social context'

(Organ, 1997: p.91) of work. These behaviours arc believed to promote the welfare of the

employee, group or organisation that the behaviour is directed at. Organ believed that it

was these contributions that went 'the extra mile' aggregate over time that led to increased

organisational effectiveness (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). OCB may indeed enhance

organisational performance through a number of ditferent means. He believed that OCB

performance reduced the need to devote scarce resources for maintenance functions and

would free up these resources for more productive purposes (Organ, 1988; Borman &

Motowidlo, 1993). In addition it is thought that OCB enhances group cohesion as it helps

to support the interdependencies between team members which results in increased

collective outcomes (Smith et aI, 1983; George & Bettenhausen, 1990). Organ's views

were supported by empirical studies that found links with job satisfaction and the

performance of OCBs (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et aI, 1983). The performance of

OCB has been described as 'good solider syndrome' (Bateman & Organ, 1983)

describing the 'good soldiers' as employees who are loyal, compliant and go beyond the

call of duty for the sake of the system (Smith et aI, 1983). With the belief that

performance of OCBs by employees contributed to a positive work environment and

increased organisational effectiveness it has led to 'organisational citizenship behaviours'

becoming an increasingly popular area of research with more than 300 studies examining

its antecedents and effects. In this time researchers have found constructs such as

organisational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986),

individualism and collectivism (Wagner & Mooch. 1986; Earley, 1989; Moorman &

Blakely, 1995), job satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983) and leadership (Deluga, 1995)

to be associated with OCB.

All of the previous research on OCBs has been based on four basic assumptions. Firstly,

organisational citizenship behaviours lie outside of an employees required job roles.

5

Secondly, that performance of OCBs originates from non self-serving motives, i.e.

organisational commitment or job satisfaction. Thirdly, that OCB facilitates organisational

functioning, and finally, that OCBs ultimately benefit the employees. However. rel:cntly a

few studies have started to question these assumptions and therefore the studies that arc

based on these assumptions (Bolino, 1999; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Many researchers have

also called Organ's definition of OCB into question, resulting in Organ (1997)

reconsidering its definition. With this in mind it seems crucial to re-examine OCB and the

assumptions that it is based on in order to ensure the validity of research on organ isational

citizenship behaviour.

Non self-serving motives for OCB performance

The first assumption of organisational citizenship behaviours is that they are performed

out of the 'good will' of the individual, and that they are spontaneous and genuine

behaviours. To further explain the reasoning behind the performance of OCB some

researchers have used a combination of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the

norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Organ (1990) hypothesised that when an individual

enters an organisation they assume a social exchange relationship; if the employees

believe that the organisation is supportive and treats them fairly they will reciprocate.

Employees are presumed to reciprocate using OCBs as it is a behaviour within their

control; they can choose to perform the behaviour or withhold it without fear of sanctions

or formal incentives to perform the behaviour (Organ, 1988). If individuals believe they

are being treated unfairly by the organisation they can adjust their relationship with the

organisation by withholding these discretionary behaviours and limit themselves to their

formally prescribed job behaviours. Many studies have cited a strong relationship between

perceptions of fairness and the performance of OCBs (Fahr, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990;

Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler,

2004). These theories all assume that OCBs are performed as part ofa 'good will'

relationship between the individual and the organisation. However, researchers have not

6

fully explored the possibility that performance of OCB can stem from anything other than

a non self-serving motive. OCB performance may arise as a proactive behaviour as the

individual chooses to engage in the behaviours as a means to satisfy other motives

(Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer. 1997). Podsakoff. MacKenzie and Hui ( 1993) have

recognized that some individuals would perform OCBs as a means to make themselves

'look good' within the organisation. It must be acknowledged that individuals may

perform OCBs when they perceive they are treated fairly or believe they are supported by

management and their supervisor. in addition to believing that their performance can lead

to important outcomes, such as pay rises or promotions.

Impression Management

Impression management refers to behaviours used by an individual to intluence the

perceptions others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan. 1994). Researchers

have commented on the overlap between OCB and impression management (Bolino.

1999; Eastman, 1994; Rioux & Penner. 2001). Bolina (1999) went on to suggest that

impression management is a strong motivational force behind OCB performance. It has

been found that employees believe that the performance of citizenship behaviours will

enhance their image and supervisors wiII view them as a 'good solider' (Ferris, Judge,

Rowland & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000; Rioux & Penner, 2001). While

OCB behaviours have been defined as not being formally rewarded, reward appears to

also be a motivational force behind OCB performance. This has been supported by

Haworth and Levy (2001) who found that employees were more likely to engage in OCBs

when they believed that the behaviours would be rewarded. In addition. Hui et ai, (2000)

found that employees were more likely to engage in OCB when they believed that it was

instrumental for gaining a promotion; what's more, employees who viewed OeBs as

instrumental were also more likely to decrease their OCB performance once promotion

decisions had been made.

7

Employees engage in impression management in the hope of inlluencing the perceptions

other people have of them (Jones & Pittman, 19H2; Rosenfeld et ai, 19(4). The usc of

OCBs as a form of impression management can make employees appear as friendly,

hardworking and cooperative colleagues (Ferris et al, 1994) and it appears that these

behaviours do indeed influence the perceptions of others. Employees who engage in high

levels of OCB are more liked by their supervisor and can receive higher performance

ratings (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, I 994;Allen & Rush, 199H; Podsakoff. Mackenzie, Paine,

& Bachrach, 2(00). In many cases the OCBs performed may not have contributed to the

organisational performance and it has been argued that supervisors place undue weight on

OCB performance in performance reviews (Podsakoff et ai, 1(93). Previous research has

noted that supervisors' evaluation of employees' behaviour can be subject to many biases

(Lefkowitz, 2(00). However, Vandenberg, Lance and Taylor (2005) argued that ratings of

OCBs are "governed by many of the same cognitive processing mechanisms underlying

the appraisal of non OCB performance dimensions" (p.III), therefore highlighting that

supervisor ratings of OCB performance are likely to be biased, just like the ratings on non

OCB performance dimensions. With this in mind, supervisors should be careful when

rating employees' performance, so as to be sure that the employees are truly 'good

soldiers' rather than employees who are good at impression management tactics (Bolino,

1999; Rioux & Penner, 2(01).

OCBs are supposed to improve cooperation and cohesion within teams; however with self

promotion as a motive, it might have the opposite effect. If employees perceive their co­

workers' OCB performance as motivated by impression management it could lead to a

politicized workplace, especially when this behaviour is rewarded (Bolino & Turnley,

2003). The employees using citizenship behaviours as a means of self promotion are less

likely to be seen as team players or good citizens (Bolino, Varela, Bande & Turnley,

2006). When OeB performance is tied in with performance evaluations, it can potentially

have negative outcomes such as diminished trust in supervisors, undermining motivation,

and lowering the perceptions of fairness (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 19(4). Managers must

8

be especially careful when using OCB performance as the basis for reward or promotion

as they risk alienating their employees if the OCB performance is used as a means of

impression management (Bolino & Turnley. 2003).

oeD as discretionary behaviours

OCB in-role behaviours or extra role behaviours

Researchers in recent years have found that organisations are requiring more of their

employees, calling on them to work longer hours and. thanks to technology, he in contact

with the organisation even when they are away from the office (Bond, Galinsky, &

Swanberg, 1997). Employees frequently go beyond the call of duty for the organisation,

but not out of perceptions of fairness or commitment to the organisation. Often the

employee believes that the behaviours are necessary and if not performed could derail

their career (Bolino & Tumely, 2003). While according to Organ's definition, OCBs are

behaviours that lie outside an employee's formally rewarded job duties, empirical

evidence has found that many employees view OCBs as part of their job (Morrison, 1994;

Pond, Nacoste, Mohr, & Rodriguez, 1997; Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). This has led many

critics to argue over which behaviours are actually OCB or extra-role behaviours versus

what are required in-role behaviours. The term 'extra-role' is too ambiguous to identify

behaviours that fall in this category across employees, context and time (Graham, 1991;

Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994). What may be more important is what the

employee perceives to be in-role or extra-role behaviours. Morrison (1994) stated that

"roles in organisations are rarely fixed and that the role perceptions evolve as employees

and supervisors negotiate the scope of work activities" (p. 1544). However, Morrison also

noted that in organisations where OCB performance is common place, the distinction

between in-role and extra-role behaviours can be ill defined and subject to multiple

interpretations. Morrison's study found that how an individual defines an activity as in­

role or extra-role is an important determinant of their behaviour. "I f an employee defines

9

helping co-workers as in-role behaviour, he or she will conceptualize the behaviour very

differently than an extra-role behaviour and will perceive a different set of incentives

surrounding the helping behaviour" (p.1544). Several studies have found that if an

employee defines their job roles loosely they are more likely to view DeBs as in-role

behaviours and are more likely to perform DeB when they are perceived to be in-role

rather than extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Kidder. 2002; Tepper & Taylor. 20D). Tepper.

Lockhard and Hoobler (200 I) results supported these studies and found that role definition

moderated the relationship between justice and OCB; the relationship between justice and

OCB was strongest amongst participants who defined DCB as an extra role behaviour

compared to those who defined it as in-role behaviour.

oeB is discretionary

With increased emphasis on the benefits of DCB performance to the organisation and its

employees. OCB has become a popular concept in management research. This has

resulted in managers attempting to encourage the performance of OCBs (Bolino &

Turnley, 2(03). However, the strategies managers could adopt to promote OCBs may have

negative consequences for the employees and organisation (Vigoda-Gadot. 2007). As

mentioned previously, by Organ's (1988) definition, employees should be free to perform

or withhold OCB performance, without fear of sanctions or formal incentives. In addition.

many researchers chose to focus only on the prosocial motives behind the performance of

OeBs, in which they are performed out of the 'good will' of the employees. Vigoda­

Gadot (2007), on the other hand has challenged the conventional view of DeB and has

proposed that not all OCB performance is voluntary by nature. At times employees can be

subject to "coercive managerial strategies or coercive social pressure by peers" (p.378). In

an article on the SBC news website (June 2007), a city lawyer (who wished to remain

anonymous) talked about the conditions she was working under. "Technically, our

working hours were 9:30 am to 5:30 pm with an hour for lunch. but since we were

'invited' to sign a written waiver of our rights under the EU working time directive, that

lO

was entirely academic." The city lawyer continues to talk about the pressure placed on

employees by management to work longer hours, not take time off for meals and deal with

clients late into the night. This characterises an increasingly common occurrence. which

Vigoda-Gadot (2006) named 'compulsory citizenship behaviour' or CCB. To Vigoda­

Gadot (2007), CCB represented "a much darker and destructive side ofOeS" (p.37X). In

the case of CCB, the performance of the behaviour emerges as a response to external

pressure placed on the employee. Managers or even co-workers can pressurize the

individual to perform behaviours that are outside the scope of their job description,

leaving the employee feeling as if they are in no position to refuse. This pressure can at

times be hostile, but even if it is not, the individual may perform the CCB out of fear of

what might happen in the future if they refuse. Employees may feel that if they refuse they

will not be considered a team player and not willing to help their co-workers which will

reduce their chances of receiving valued rewards or in some cases even keeping their jon

(Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2(02). As in the earlier example of the city law firm. and

indeed many other organisations, CCB has created a social atmosphere in which working

beyond the formal working hours. without any formal compensation, is considered the

accepted norm (Vigoda-Gadot, 2(07). Some employees will yield to CCB as the accepted

norm, while others will view them as abusive. It is these employees who assess CCBs as

abusive that are expected to regard CCBs in a negative manner, both in their performance

and psychologically (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). The results of Vigoda-Gadot's (2007) study

found that when individuals feIt that they were forced into performing what they view as

extra role behaviours, it can produce negative work outcomes. Over two thirds of the

participants reported that CCBs were common in the workplace and that refusing to

perform these behaviours was considered unacceptable. In addition, it was found that

CCBs led to higher levels of job stress and burnout. increased intention to leave, and

stronger perception of organisational politics; lower levels of job satisfaction and

innovation were also reported. It is the multiple interpretation of what constitutes in-role

or extra-role behaviours that produces a feeling of 'abusive supervision' in employees

who feel they are being forced to perform behaviours they did not originally want to

engage in (Vigoda-Gadot. 2006). The results of these studies suggest that while OCBs

II

may produce organisational benefits, it must be encouraged in a legitimate manner. such

as enhancing perceptions of fairness and trust, improved communication or improved

organisational climate (Vigoda-Gadot. 2007).

oeB facilitates effective functioning

Over time organisations have continued to grow in size and complexity, resulting in many

organisations adopting a flatter, team based organisational structure. Teams. rather than

individual employees have become the basic building blocks of organisations. allowing

them to respond quicker to the changing environment (Cohen & Bailey. 1997). and with

the increase of an interdependent nature of work and team hased organisations.

cooperation and cohesion in teams has become especially important (ligen & Pulakos,

1999). It has been suggested that citizenship behaviour enhances organisational

performance through its ability to manage the interdependencies between employees,

resulting in an improved team output (Smith, et al. 1983; Organ, 1988). Organ cited many

other reasons behind the assumption that OCB performance over time will increase

organisational performance (Organ, 1988), such as by freeing up resources for more

productive purposes. Essentially, some researchers believe the OCBs facilitate effective

functioning because they "lubricate the social machinery of the organisation" (Smith et ai,

1983. p. 654). however clear theoretical basis for such a claim (Bolino. Tumely &

Bloodgood, 2002) and sufficient empirical evidence appears to be lacking.

Empirical evidence of oeBs effect on organisational performance

Many studies into the antecedents of citizenship behaviour have been justified by the fact

that OCBs enhance organisational performance; however. there is limited empirical

evidence to support this claim. Speaking on the relationship between OCB and

organisation performance, Borman and Motowidlo said that it is "typically logical and

12

conceptual rather than empirical" (1993, p. 88). One study that has examined the

relationship between work unit performance and citizenship behaviour was performed by

Karambayya (1989). Participants were taken from 18 work groups from 12 different

organisations and were mainly white collar and professional employees. Results found

higher levels of citizenship behaviours in the teams that were rated as having higher levels

of performance and satisfaction. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) have also examined the

relationship between OCB and organisational performance. With a sample taken from 116

agencies in an insurance company, they found that OCB accounted for almost 170/(' of the

variance in agency performance levels. However, while they found that some citizenship

behaviour dimensions, namely civic virtue and sportsmanship, had a positive effect on

unit performance, helping behaviour was found to have a negative relationship with unit

performance. Their study was also limited by the fact that the data was cross sectional and

only revealed the effect of citizenship behaviour at one particular point in time. This

makes it difficult to assess whether it was the citizenship behaviour displayed at the time

that had the effect on unit performance. While there does appear to be some evidence that

citizenship behaviour is correlated with some aspects of organisational performance it is

rather limited. In addition to this. there also appears to be some instances in which OCB is

unrelated to organisational performance and at times may have a negative impact on

organizational functioning (Bolino et al. 2004).

OCB detracting from organisational effectiveness

Based on the belief that citizenship behaviours support the social and psychological

environment of the workplace, management often encourage employees to help one

another and perform other citizenship behaviours. However, often ignored by researchers,

citizenship behaviours may at times prove costly for organisations. As mentioned

previously, the cost of citizenship behaviours are likely to outweigh the benefits gained

when they are performed instead of in-role duties (Bolino et aI, 2(04). They also may

prove problematic if individuals are helping out when they have little knowledge of the

13

area. As OCBs are not formally recognised by the organisation's reward system there is no

means of assessing the quality of these behaviours molino & Turnely. 2003). In a

workplace where citizenship behaviours are encouraged. employees may teel obliged to

help colJeagues even when they have no training in that area; this could lead to them

providing incorrect information or even creating a larger problem. Citizenship behaviour

can also be costly for an organisation if they rely on their employees going beyond the call

of duty rather than hiring additional employees instead. Anecdotal evidence. gathered in

\0 large US firms, found that the time spent by their employees helping their co-workers

with their computing problems cost these firms between $6000 and $15.000 a year for

every computer in the organisation (Bulkeley. 1992). While this evidence is purely

anecdotal it does suggest that in some organisations it may be more cost effective to hire

additional staff rather than relying on their current staff. especially when it could take

them away from their in-role duties or having them help in areas in which they may have

limited knowledge. It has been suggested by researchers that high levels of DCBs are a

sign of a healthy organisation; however. it might also be a sign of significant problems in

the organisation (Bolino et al. 2(04). If employees are frequently called upon to perform

citizenship behaviours it may be a reflection of inadequate training in the organisation or

that the organisation is not being selective enough in its hiring practices. It has also been

noted that when layoffs have occurred in an organisation, it can result in the organisation

being dependent on the remaining employees to perform behaviours that are not in their

job scope to make up for the organisation's losses (Brockner. 1992; Conlin. 2(02). While

this may not cause much harm in the short term, continually having to perform tasks

outside ones formal job description without any formal recognition can result in

dissatisfaction. burnout and a higher turnover rate (Bolino & Turnely. 2(03).

oeB benefits the employees

Citizenship behaviours have been presented as a behaviour that enhances the organisations

effectiveness, but ultimately benefits the employees (Organ. 1988; Podsakoff et al. 20(0).

14

It is believed that when an organisation has a high level of citizenship behaviour it creates

a positive working climate for the employees; in addition, it has also been assumed thai

OCB supports the interpersonal relationships between employees, which are especially

important today with the increase of team based organisations (Organ, 1988).

Escalating OeB

By Organ's (1988) definition of OCBs, these are behaviours that the employee has control

over, and they can choose whether thcy want to perform it or nol without fear of sanctions

or being formally rewarded. However, citizenship behaviours are often used by employees

as a means by which they can 'stand out' from their co-workers (Bolino el aI, 2(04). By

performing citizenship behaviours, an employee hopes to appear as a 'good citizen' and

also convey his otherwise unobserved capabilities to his supervisor. While other

researchers have used the social exchange theory to explain the performance of citizenship

behaviours, Salamon and Deutsch (2006) have suggested an alternative explanation.

Drawing from evolutionary psychology they have presented the handicap principle

(Zahavi, 1977; Grafen, 1990) to explain individuals' motivations for engaging in these so

called voluntary acts. Organisational citizenship behaviours can be quite costly for

individuals to engage in, as they require time and effort to be performed. However

Salamon and Deutsch (2006) proposed that individuals engage in these behaviours

because they convey a credible signal to observers about the capabilities of the individuals

that are otherwise unobservable. Employees who want to stand out from the crowd will

engage in levels of OCBs high enough for them to be noticed, but also high enough that it

will be unlikely that co-workers could also engage in them or attempt to imitate them.

However, this competition to stand out from the crowd can lead to employees competing

with each other to be seen as the best organisational citizen (Bolino & Turnley, 2003).

Escalating citizenship occurs when employees must continually increase their acts of

citizenship, continually doing more and more to be seen as going above and beyond the

call of duty and be viewed as an exceptional employee. A few studies have suggested that

15

organisations are now more likely to encourage their employees to put in longer hours, he

more assessable to the organisation and work hard for the organisation (Schor, 19Y I;

Reich, 200 I). This has pushed employees to display higher levels of citizenship behaviour

in order to be viewed as exceptional, as some citizenship behaviours become an accepted

norm. Escalating citizenship is likely to be associated with numerous negative outcollles

for the employee such as role overload, higher levels of stress, and work-family conllict

(Bolino et ai, 2004; Bolino & Turnely, 2003).

Overload and OCB

In their paper, Van Dyne, Cummings, and Parks (1995) stated that, "although Organ

(1990) defines OCB as positive in terms of both intent and outcome, it is possible to

imagine intendedly positive acts of extra role behaviour that have negative outcomes" (p.

278). While there has been much discussion on the effects of citizenship behaviour. this

predominantly focuses on the positive effects it may have. Most researches have

overlooked any negative impact that OCB may have on employees (Bolino & Turnley.

2005). The effects that OCBs have on employees have mainly focused on the how they

may enhance appraisal ratings or help with the progression of an employee's career

(Podsakoff et aI, 2(00). Past research has found that high levels of work effort can have a

detrimental effect on the employee's well being (Williams, 1999), which does suggest that

if an employee was engaging in high levels of citizenship behaviour it could potentially

lead to negative outcomes.

Many organisations are demanding more of their employees, and as Williams (1999) put

it, the ideal worker for most organisations is one who "works full time and overtime and

takes 1inle or no time off for childbearing and child rearing" (p.l). Wei bourne, Johnson

and Erez (1998) have proposed that employees have two key job roles, the job-holder role

and the organisational member role. The job-holder role comprises all the responsihilities

and duties entailed as part of their formally prescribed job role. The organisational

member role represents all the duties involved in the employee being a 'good

16

organizational citizen'. Employees often feel pressurised to fulti I both these job roles

(Perlow, 1998); especially since individuals that do fuItil both roles successfully often

receive higher performance ratings and are more likely to be considered for promotion~

than those who chose not to fulfil the roles or fail to do so (Werner, 1994; Allen & Rush,

1998). Having to fulfil the organizational member role, while maintaining the required

job-holder role, requires more of the employee's resources, namely thcir time and cnergy,

which they may not have to give (Bolino & Turnely, 2005). It is perceivable that an

employee can suffer role overload, in which they feel that there are too many

responsibilities or duties to be completed with limited time and other constraints on them

(Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). In their meta-analysis of OCB, Organ and Ryan ( 1995)

indicated that high levels of citizenship behaviour could result in an employee feeling

overloaded and contribute to his stress levels. One of the few studies investigating the

effect of citizenship behaviour on employees was performed hy Bolino and Turnley

(2005). Focusing on individual initiative, a specific type of OCB that is made up of task

related behaviours, "at a level that is so far beyond minimally required or generally

expected levels that it takes on a voluntary flavour," (Podsakoff et ai, 2000, p.524) found

that high levels of individual initiative were related to higher levels of role overload, joh

stress and work-family conflict. They concluded that there may be some personal cost

associated with 'good soldier syndrome' (Organ, 1988).

It has been suggested that rewards gained by taking on additional responsibilities and

activities associated with citizenship behaviours may outweigh any of the costs associated

with the additional stress that might occur from performing these behaviours (Sieber,

1974). So while higher levels ofOCB may be associated with role overload, stress and

work family conflict, the gains from higher performance ratings and career progression

may offset these negative outcomes (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). More research is needed to

better understand under what conditions citizenship behaviour results in negative

outcomes for employees (Bolino et ai, 2004).

17

Constructive deviant behaviours

Sportsmanship, one of the dimensions of citizenship behaviour, refers to employee~

tolerating annoyances and inconveniences without complaining. This therefore puts

importance on an employee's ability to remain silent and not voicing their concerns.

While it has been put forth as a behaviour that positively effects the organisation and its

employees, it may not always be the case. In certain circumstances, citizenship

behaviours, which have been defined as positive productive behaviours for the

organisation, can have negative outcomes. Equally, behaviours that have been defined as

counterproductive work behaviours or deviant behaviours can actually have a positive

effect on the organisation. Deviant behaviour has been defined as a behaviour that goes

against the norm (Bord, 1976). While this definition allows for a positive and negative

interpretation of the behaviour (Galperin, 2003; Warren, 2003), most of the previous

literature has conceptualized deviant behaviours as causing harm to the organisation

(Galperin & Burke, 2(06). Similarly, counterproductive work behaviours (CWB) have

been described as behaviours that harm or intend to harm the organisation or the

organisational stakeholders (Spector & Fox, 2005), combining many different behaviours

into one dimension (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006). In both

these research areas, some behaviours that fall within these dimensions can have positive

outcomes. Constructive deviance is described as behaviour that challenges the existing

organisational norms in order to help the organisation. Behaviours such as whistle blowing

fall into this category, by deviating from the norm of silence, which normally is promoted

as a citizenship behaviour; an employee who voices their concerns can prevent

organisational failure and even save lives by doing so (Warren, 2003).

Within the organisational citizenship literature, helping behaviours have been presented as

a prized behaviour to have within an organisation. Helping behaviours assist in supporting

work in today's organisations which require employees to cooperate and work

interdependently. However, it is also important for an organisation to possess behaviours

18

that can help facilitate change (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). "No organizational planning

can foresee all contingencies within its own operations, can anticipate with perfect

accuracy all environmental changes, or can control perfectly all human variability ... An

organization which depends solely upon its blueprint of prescribed behaviour is a very

fragile social system," (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 338). While this statement promotes the

use of extra-role behaviours to help an organisation survive, it more importantly promotes

employee innovation to aid organisations in adapting to unforeseen changes. In these cases

innovative behaviour should be prized by organisations as it looks to redefine the

"knowledge, strategies, and mission of a work role" (Staw & Boettger, 1990, p. 536).

Previous research has suggested that employees who complain about an organisation's

improper actions or procedures can improve the organisation's well being in the long term

(Graham, 1986; Near & Micelli, 1987). With that, challenging organisational practices arc

important to organisations when they need to be dynamic and adapt to ongoing changes.

The literature on organisational citizenship behaviours has predominately focused on the

performance of helping behaviours (Moon, Van Dyne, & Wrobel, 2(05), which suggests

that we are missing out on a whole range of other organisational citizenship behaviours

that could be equally advantageous to the organisations; this coupled with the overtly

positive stance of DCB research, suggests that researchers are not viewing the whole

picture.

Aims of the research

Organisational citizenship behaviour was defined by Organ (1988) as an "individual

behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward

system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organisation" (p.4).

While there is no doubt that there are employee and organisational gains from the

performance of DeBs, it must also be considered that there are times at which it can have

a negative impact. Based on past research it is clear that many researchers have

overlooked other plausible explanations for OCB performance (other than being

19

performed for prosocial motives) and often ignored any negative outcomes. Much of the

research that has been performed over the last twenty years has been based on four basic

assumptions: (I) OCBs originate from non self-serving motives. (2) it is discretionary. (3)

it facilitates organisational functioning and finally. (3) that it ultimately benefits the

employees (Solino et ai, 2004). Based on the findings of a few researchers. it is clear that

we should be cautious of any findings that have been made when the research has been

based on these assumptions.

First and foremost, it is important to examine citizenship behaviours away from possible

antecedents and potential outcomes. While the definition of DCB has been expanded

recently after it was acknowledged that DCBs are recognized and rewardcd (Allen &

Rush, 1998) and how they are perceived can affect the performance and outcome

(Morrison, 1994), a better grounding is needed before more research is performed.

Morrison (1994) noted that the lines between in-role and extra-role behaviours are otten

blurry and suggests that they are not clear, distinct concepts. In addition, how an employee

conceptualises the behaviour can affect the way they perceive the behaviour and its

outcomes. With that in mind, it seems the first task at hand is to better understand how

employees and managers conceptualise DCBs. Organisations are demanding more of their

employees, and many behaviours that were once thought of as 'going beyond the call of

duty' are now the accepted norm. It is important to investigate how DCBs are perceived

by the stakeholders and if they conceptualise it differently. Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2(07)

presented the concept of compulsory citizenship behaviours, which highlighted that how

the behaviour is perceived can affect the outcome of the behaviour. When a citizenship

behaviour is considered in-role, an employee is more likely to engage in the behaviour;

while those who considered the behaviours to be extra-role are more likely to experience

negative outcomes when they believe the behaviour is compUlsory. The overall aim of this

research is to investigate organisational citizenship behaviours without the preconceived

assumptions and to arrive at a clearer view of this blurry concept.

20

Chapter 2

The Influence of Culture

The Cultural Bias in Psychology

The early years of psychology were dominated by Western psychologists, a majority of

whom originated from the United States, leading to most of the research conducted into

human behaviours being performed in the United States (Seagall, Dasen, Berry &

Poortinga, 1990). "The vast majority of psychological research and practice has been

developed and now takes place in the industrialized world; this includes primarily Europe

and North America but also those other parts of the world settled from, or influenced by,

these societies. Usually excluded are the vast populations of Africa and Asia, as well as

those in Oceania and South America" (Berry, Irvine, & Hunt, 1988, p.I). This is not a

criticism of the United States or Western psychologists and research, rather a concern for

the monopoly of research by a single cultural viewpoint. As noted by Seagall et al (1990)

"There is a very real danger that psychologists, by limiting their attention to the

behaviours of individuals in a single society (however complex that society might be),

may lose sight altogether of culture itself. The scientist, no less than the most

unsophisticated layperson who knows only his or her own society, becomes prey to

ethnocentric judgements" (p.30-31). By focusing research on the view points of

individuals from a single society, researchers label effects that are influenced by the

culture of the society as examples of universal human nature. Thankfully, psychology has

started to consider the importance of culture as a determinant of human behaviour, with

many researchers testing psychological phenomena across cultures before establishing

them as psychological principles.

Occupation psychology was also affected by this 'historical baggage' (Arnold, Silvester,

Patterson, Robertson, Cooper & Burnes, 2005) with the majority of early studies

21

dominated by American researchers. who conducted research frequently within their own

country (in predominately large organisations) whose workforce was frequently ethnically

homogeneous and predominately male (Hogan & Emler. 1978). However. this conflicts

with one of the main goals of psychological research. which is to develop theories that can

be applied to different populations. To achieve this goal, theories have to be tested in a

wide range of situations and cultures. "In no other way can we be certain that what we

believe to be ... regularisations are not merely peculiarities. the product of some limited set

of historical or cultural or political circumstances" (Kohn. 1987. p. 713).

In the I 960s cultural factors were largely ignored in occupational psychology (Barrett &

Bass, 1976). However. by the 1970s researchers became aware that organisational

behaviour varied across countries and cultures (Massie & Luytjes, 1972). Research has

found that the applications of management techniques developed in one country, may not

deliver the same results in another country (Adler, 1997). Lammers and Hickson ( 1979)

suggested that the careless application of occupational psychology in various cultures

could actually be dangerous due to the differences in organisational operations and

behaviour. Thankfully, occupational psychology has acknowledged that the development

of theories has to take cultural factors into consideration (Triandis. 1976; Silverthorne.

2005).

The way organisations operate has changed considerably since the early days of

occupational psychology. In the past, organisations would be competing with other

organisations within their own domestic market. Now, organisations compete in a glohal

economy. The rise of globalisation has resulted in an increased number of multinational

organisations, culturally diverse workforces, mergers of organisations based in different

countries and numerous other issues for organisations to deal with. In addition,

organisations have had to adapt to rapidly changing technology and telecommunications

(Erez, 1994).

22

Technology has improved the flow of information through advances in communication,

which allows organisations to adapt to the changing environment. Technology has made it

easier for employees to work from home and still keep in touch with the office. It has also

allowed organisations to expand their operations to foreign countries. However, the

changes brought on by globalisation and technology have accelerated the need for

organisations to address the different values and behaviours in diverse cultures. For

occupational psychology to further our understanding of work behaviour, it is essential

that we acknowledge and study the effects of culture.

What is Culture?

Anyone who has travelled to another country has probably noticed the differences

between their home and the foreign place they were visiting. A British businessman on a

working trip to Japan may outstretch his hand to greet his Japanese colleague, while the

Japanese businessman may bow instead. Providing examples of cultural differences is far

easier than providing an all encompassing definition of culture. Culture is studied in a

wide range of disciplines including anthropology, sociology and psychology, all of which

have provided different definitions and descriptions of what culture is. Lucian Pye (1997)

described culture as an 'elusive' concept; however, many researchers have provided

definitions of culture which allow us to better understand the concept. Anthropologists

Kroeber and Kluckohn (1952) compiled a list of over 150 definitions of culture in their

book Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts alld Definitions. From this, they formulated

their own definition of culture, which is one of the most commonly accepted and

comprehensive definitions of culture:

"Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and/or behaviour acquired and

transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement (~f human groups,

23

including their embodiment ill anefacts; the essential core of culture consists of

traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and espn'ially their attached

values; culture systems may, 011 the olle hand, be considered as products oj'action, Oil the

other as conditioning elements offill'ther action . .. (p.181)

Triandis (1994) defined culture as "".a set of human made objective and subjective

elements that in the past have increased the probability of survival and resulted in

satisfactions from the participants in an ecological niche, and thus became shared among

those who could communicate with each other because they had a common language and

they lived in the same time and place" (p.23). The objective elements of culture would be

objects of culture that are tangible such as architecture or the type of food eaten.

Subjective elements of culture are the human elements, such as the social, religious,

political and economic practices of a culture. Triandis' definition also notes that culture

aids in human survival and is passed from generation to generation. Most of the

definitions of culture share common features; the idea of a group of people with shared

beliefs, values. and behaviours that are passed through generations. Perhaps the most

concise definition of culture is that of Berry, Poortinga. Segal and Dasen (2002) who

defined culture as 'the shared way of life ofa group of people' (p.2). While defining what

culture is, it is also important to note what culture is not. Culture is not always the same as

nationality or race. There are many diverse nations such as the United States or Singapore

that include many different cultural groups.

With our ever increasingly interconnected world, people are more aware of cultural

differences. If you were to meet a Thai person who pressed their palms together in a

prayer like fashion, many people would recognise it as the tradition greeting used in

Thailand called wai. However, with the increasing exposure to other cultures through

tourism. multinational companies, migration and advancing technology these unique

cultures may not be as stable as before. People who were once fairly isolated from other

cultures are now being influenced by the dissemination of pop culture. However. on the

24

other hand, there is also evidence of 'global separation' (Shiraev & Levy, 20 I 0, p. 23).

Many countries have split along religious and ethnic lines. with ethnic and religious

groups demanding independence. This division of culture through ethnic or religious lines

protects their culture as they strongly define themselves on these differences. Regardless

of 'global separation' or the dissemination of pop culture, culture still plays an important

role in occupational research. and we should acknowledge the differences between people

and the effects they may have on work behaviour.

Hofstede's cultural typologies

Since the 1980s there has been a myriad of cultural or <.-Toss-cultural studies in

organisational research. A major catalyst to the upsurge in research was Geert Hofstede's

(1980a) book Culture's Consequences: Internati01wl Differences in Work Relafed Values.

Hofstede's cultural typologies developed in his 1980s study proved to be highly

significant as it gave cultural studies a theoretical framework to work from and made it

possible to perform comparative research (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007). Hofstede's

cultural typologies were developed using data from over 116,000 surveys from over

88,000 employees working for IBM in 40 countries. Hofstede began collecting data in

1967 continuing till 1969 and again in 1971 to 1973. Once the data was collected the

scores were averaged for each country and then analysed using a factor analysis technique,

isolating the key factors. From his analysis, Hofstede created his cultural typologies; four

bipolar dimensions that could be used to describe cultural differences.

Power Distance: Power distance was defined by Hofstede as "the extent to which a

society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organisations is distributed

unequally" (1980b, p. 45). In organisations, this translates to a hierarchy between

employees - a distance between senior employees and their subordinates. In cultures high

in power distance, such as Malaysia, Philippines, Mexico and China, subordinates accept

their position in the organisation and respect their superiors. In these cultures, it is

25

accepted that those higher in the organisational hierarchy have the power to make

decisions and prescribe rules and procedures. In cultures that are low in power distance

(e.g. Austria, Israel and Denmark) managers in organisations arc more willing to share

their authority.

Uncertainty Avoidance: Hofstede defined uncertainty avoidance as "the extent to which

a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these

situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not

tolerating deviant ideas and behaviours, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment

of expertise" (1980b, p.35). Uncertainty avoidance measures the de!,'Tee to which

individuals prefer structure to a lack of structure. Countries high in uncertainty avoidance

(such as Greece, Portugal and Japan) tend to be uncomfortable with risk and Jack of

structure. To deal with this, cultures high in uncertainty avoidance will create laws and

rules to avoid the risks. This can also be seen through lifetime employment, which is

common in Japan (Silverthorne, 2005). Countries low in uncertainty avoidance (such as

Singapore, Sweden and Hong Kong) are more accepting of changes and are happy to try

new things; this can be demonstrated through job mobility.

Individualism - Collectivism: Individualism is defined as "a loosely knit social

framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their

immediate families only". Collectivism "is characterized by a tight social framework in

which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups, they expect their in-group to

look after them. and in exchange for that they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it"

(Hofstede, 1980b. p. 45). The dimension can also be thought of as the degree to which an

individual prefers to work alone rather than in a group. In cultures high in individualism,

such as the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, people often put their own

goals ahead of the goals of the group. In addition, cultures high in individualism value

personal achievement, autonomy and innovation. Cultures high in collectivism, such as

Guatemala, Pakistan and Indonesia, value loyalty and maintaining personal relationships

26

and social harmony. Collectivist individuals will put the needs and goals of the group

ahead of their own personal goals.

Masculinity - Femininity: Masculinity is defined as "the extent to which the dominant

values in society are "masculine" - that is, assertiveness. the acquisition of money and

things, and not caring for others, the quality oflife, or people" (Hofstede. 1980b, p. 46).

This dimension is bipolar, so femininity is defined as the opposite of masculinity;

dominant values in Feminine cultures would be concern for others and sensitivity.

Cultures that are high in masculinity, such as Japan. Hungry and Austria, are likely to be

male dominated, especially in higher management: whereas, cultures high in femininity.

such as Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, are more likely to have women in senior

and professional positions.

It was suggested that due to the fact that Hofstede is Dutch. the values would be biased

towards the west. Testing this possibility the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) created a

survey based on Chinese values. The researchers found little support for Hofstede's

uncertainty avoidance dimension: instead they identified a different fourth dimension

which they labelled Confucian dynamism. This dimension reflected the teachings of

Confucius and a core set of Asian values including time orientation and thrift versus

conspicuous expenditure. Confucianism, the Chinese ethical and philosophical system, has

been attributed to the long term success of Japan and other South East Asian countries

(Yeung & Tung, 1996). Hofstede and Bond (1988) had also considered the Western bias

and had conducted a Chinese value survey which also found similar findings. Confucian

dynamism is also sometimes labelled long-and short-term orientation because high scores

on the scales are associated with future-oriented beliefs, while low scores are associated

with past or present beliefs.

27

Long Term Orientation: This dimension was added to Hofstede's other four dimensions.

A high score on long term orientation implies a 'future orientation'; they value

persistence, hierarchical relationships, thrift and having a sense of shame. It has been

found that The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea

score highly on long term orientation (Hofstede, 1997). Japan is a country known for its

focus on the long term when investing in industries to maintain competitiveness with other

countries (l.-enway & Murtha, 1994). A low score indicates an orientation towards the

present and past; they value stability, personal steadiness, saving face, respect for tradition

and the reciprocation of favours. Pakistan, Nigeria, United Kingdom and the United States

had low scores on long term orientation.

In general, Hofstede has had a great deal of support for his cultural typologies. although it

is not without its critics. One of the major criticisms of Hofstede's work is the way it was

developed, as it was not designed to measure culture. When Hofstede designed his

questionnaires for the employees of IBM, it was designed to measure employee's

satisfaction, morale and their perception of work. The creations of the cultural dimensions

were an afterthought after the data had been collected (Silverthorne, 2005). Roberts and

BoyacigilJer (1984) highlighted that Hofstede's work was not grounded in any theoretical

framework based on previous cultural theory; which has led some researchers to criticise

Hofstede's use of exploratory factor analysis. Rather than testing a specific hypothesis, the

statistical analysis tested a variety of options until it got a fit (Fink & Monge. 1985). This

suggests that Hofstede's cultural typology was just taking advantages of unforeseen

correlations that appeared in the data. Further, Hofstede's sample was taken from

employees in just one organisation, IBM. While having participants a\l from one

multinational organisation allows for comparisons of employees in different countries it

does ignore any within country cultural heterogeneity (Sivakumar & Nakata, 200 I).

Another issue regarding Hofstede's research is that culture is subject to change over time.

Hofstede's study of the employees of IBM was conducted between 1969 and 1973, and

now that the research is almost 40 years old, would the questionnaire generate the same

28

results if conducted today? Since then, the speed of change in technology and

globalisation has meant that countries are more easily influenced by other nations, thereby

it could affect how some countries score on Hofstede's dimensions. Finally, some could

criticise Hofstede for reducing the complexity of culture to only four or five dimensions.

However, it is this simplification of culture to a few dimensions that has allowed the

growth of cultural and cross-cultural research within psychology.

Since the creation of Hofstede's cultural typologies there have been a myriad of studies

using the dimensions. Power distance and individualism-collectivism have received the

most attention from researchers and these dimensions have been used to study the effect of

culture on organisations. The individualism-collectivism dimension has been most

frequently used to compare Eastern and Western cultures (Chan. 1994). Early work was

dominated by studies performed in the United States and other Western countries. It is

thought that individualism is more prevalent in Western societies, with the United States

considered the quintessential individualistic culture (Oyserman, Coon & Kemme1meier,

2002), because since its independence, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' has been

a comer stone of American life. It is a society that advocates a person's frcedom,

individual choice and equal opportunities (Lukes, 1973; Inglehart, 1997). The' American

Dream' allows any enterprising and hardworking individual to obtain their personal goals

and desires.

On the other hand, Eastern countries are considered to be collectivist societies. Many

Eastern cultures have been influenced by the teaching of Confucius. stressing the

importance of dedication to one's in-group. This is especially true for China where

Confucianism has been deep rooted in their culture for over two thousand years (Chen &

Chung, 1994). Part of Confucius' teachings stresses the importance of hierarchically and

fundamental relationships or 'Wu Lun' (emperor-subject. husband-wife. parent-child.

older brother-younger brother, and older friend-younger friend relationships) (Farh. Earley

& Lin, 1997). This highlights that in collectivist societies, individuals define themselves in

29

terms of their family. country. and in-group. These teachings extend to the organisation as

the organisation is considered a 'family' and managers are considered 'surrogate parents'

to the employees. The relationship between manager and employees is that of a family

patriarch who has to take care of his family members. In return the employee will be loyal

to his employers (Redding. 1990; Farh & Chung. 2(00).

Individualism- Collectivism framework

Researchers have long acknowledged that cooperation is crucial to the successful running

of an organisation (Barnard. 1938). Therefore it is understandable that individualism and

collectivism has attracted such interest. Individualism-collectivism can be thought of as

the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. which in turn would atlect the

degree of cooperation in teams. In his research on individualism-collectivism Triandis

(1995) summarised four attributes that define the dimension: definition of self. personal

versus group goals. the emphasis on exchange rather than communal relationships and

importance of attitudes and norms as determinants of social behaviour. Individualists

define themselves as an autonomous being. while collectivists define themsel ves in terms

of their belonging to in-groups (Markus & Kitayama. 1991). Individualistic cultures are

characterised by their independence from in-groups. competition. freedom. and define

their success through their own personal achievements. However. collectivist cultures are

characterised by interdependence. security. obedience and in-group harmony and define

their success through the achievements of their in-group (Earley & Gibson. 1998).

Ramamorthy and Flood (2004) stated that the defining feature of Individualism­

Collectivism is the difference in emphasis placed on personal goals versus collective

goals. Individualistic individuals will place greater emphasis on achieving personal goals

in comparison to individuals who have a collectivist orientation. It is when the goals of the

individual and the goals of the group are in conflict an individual's individualist

collectivist orientation becomes apparent. Individualists find it permissible to place their

30

own goals ahead of the goals of the group to satisfy their own individual needs

(Ramamoorthy & Carroll. 1998). However a person with a collectivist orientation will feel

obliged to forsake the attainment of their own personal goals for the better g(xxl of the

group. They will look out for the well being of the group and help with the attainment of

the group's goals, even if their own personal interests have to be ignored. This sense of

obligation to the group can also be seen in the emphasis collectivists will place on

maintaining group harmony and avoiding conflict to ensure the stability of their in-group

(Cox. Lobel & McLeod, 1991). On the other hand. individualists. who define thcmselvcs

in terms of their own achievements and autonomy. will cut ties with their in-group if they

feel the group is interfering with the obtaining of their goals. or feel their needs are not

being met (Earley & Gibson, 1998). These differences in attitudes are retlected in the

career paths of individualist and collectivist employees. Individualistic individuals tend to

have career paths that are based on personal achievement and will leave an in-group to

join another group to ensure these achievements; while collectivists tend to have careers

that are based on tenure and commitment to the organisation they work for. Parkes.

Bochner. & Schneider (200 I) supported this point as they found that collecti vists tended

to have longer tenure than individualistic orientated individuals and they were also more

likely to exhibit greater commitment to the organisation. In addition. much research has

found that collectivist orientations are associated with loyalty and commitment to

teamwork (Wagner. 1995; Clugston. Howell. & Dorfman, 2000; Kirkman & Shapiro.

2000).

Individualism and Collectivism as Individual Differences

Hofstede (1980a) presented his cultural typologies as fundamental differences between

cultures. While Hofstede developed these cultural dimensions from the responses of

individuals. he used it to compare the cultures of various countries. He highlighted that

some cultures were highly individualistic, such as the United States. while other cultures

were highly collectivist. such as Indonesia. In the past most research using the

31

individualist collectivist dimensions have been at the national level. However, researchers

presented considerable evidence that the difference between collectivists and

individualists may exist not only between nations, but also within nations in the form of an

individual difference (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1995; Wagner, 1995). It was noted

by Hui and Triandis (1986) that cultures which arc labelled as individualist or collectivist

are simply cultures in which the majority of individuals have individualistic or collectivist

orientations. Researchers have also stressed the importance of moving away from

generalising country's cultures to an individual difference approach. Researchers have

come to acknowledge that variance within a culture does exist. A British employee who

spent their childhood living in Thailand is likely to be more collectivist than a British

employee who has never left the United Kingdom. Keith C~OII) suggested that using

individualism collectivism as an individual measure would allow researchers 10 avoid

stereotyping cultures and allow researchers to account for the occurrence of individualistic

individuals in collectivist cultures and vice versa. Kwantes, Karam, Kuo and Towson

(2008) highlighted that research using cultural variables can lead to spurious conclusions

if researchers inappropriately cross levels of analysis; for example, measuring culture at

the societal level and assuming that those values applied to all individuals in a sample

drawn from that society or that results from a sample of individuals applies to the society

as a whole.

The mixing of culture and experiences is becoming increasingly widespread and common;

it is no longer enough to know the nationality of the person to account for their orientation

(Triandis & Singelis, 1998). In addition. Earley and Mosakowski (1995) argued that the

individual level analysis has advantages over country level analysis. They suggested that it

allows a more direct connection to the area of culture being studied, as it measures the

relative degree of value that culture adds, rather than the generalised level of culture

according to nationality. However. Kwantes et al (2008) highlighted that there are some

drawbacks from studying culture at a single level of analysis. Firstly. when studying

individualism and collectivism as an individual difference, researchers would be unable to

32

rule out the effect of variables at other levels of analysis. Secondly, research using a single

level of measurement would be unable to argue that the effects found arc the result of

cultural effects rather than just individual ditTerences. Regardless of this, currently most

research studies now examine individualism and collectivism at the individuallcvcls

(Oyserman et aI, 2(02).

Traindis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao and Shina (1995) stressed that when measuring

individualism and collectivism at the individual level of analysis, researchers should use

terms to clarify the type of cultural data being used. Markus and Kitayama (1991)

suggested the use of 'independence' and 'interdependence' to describe the individual

levels of analysis compared to the use of country- or society-level comparisons. More

widely known are the terms proposed by Triandis (1995), who coined the terms

'idiocentrism' and 'allocentrism' as the individual level equivalent of individualism and

collectivism. However, while most research is performed at the individual level. neither of

the terms suggested have attained common usage in the literature. While the use of the

terms may have not caught on, research has embraced the use of individualism and

collectivism as individual differences. This has allowed researchers to acknowledge that

not all members of a culture share the same perspective and ideas, especially important

with the increase in culturally diverse workforces.

Individualism-Collectivism and the Organisation

Individualism-collectivism has been subject to numerous studies in psychology, using it to

identify cultural differences in family life, adolescent aggression, religion and mental

health to name a few. Even within occupational psychology, it has been used in a wide

range of research topics such as, economic growth, groups, rewards and leadership. These

studies aim to look at the impact of the individualism collectivism dimension on

organisational performance. With a better understanding of the effect of culture it is

assumed that managers can make adjustments to work behaviours and practices to ensure

33

they fit the cultural context (Earley & Gibson. 1998). One area of particular interest in

relation to individualism and collectivism is that of organisational citizenship behaviours.

As mentioned in the previous chapter. OCBs are considered to be desirable behaviours for

employees (Podsakoff. MacKenzie. Paine & Bachrach. 20(0) and have been considered as

vitally important for the functioning of organisations (Smith. Organ & Ncar. 1983).

Organisational citizenship behaviours have been linked with job satisfaction (Bateman &

Organ. 1983; Smith et al. 1983). organisational commitment (Organ & Ryan, 1995). and

perceptions of fairness (Becker, 1992). Kwantes et al (2008) highlighted that there has

been a limited amount of research examining the role of culture in the performance of

OCB. exemplified by Podsakoff et al (2000) and lePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) not

including culture as an antecedent to the performance of citizenship behaviours in their

reviews and meta-analysis of the OCB literature. This is despite the fact that researchers

have found evidence in differences in the performance of OCBs by individualist and

collectivist employees. Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that collectivist employees

were more likely to perform organisational citizenship behaviours than their

individualistic counterparts. They postulated that the difference in performance was due to

the values and norms associated with a collectivist orientation. as a collectivist would feel

obligated to ensure the welfare of their in-group which could be obtained through the

performance of OCBs.

One of the values associated with individualistic employees is a preoccupation with their

rights (Earley & Gibson, 1998). Individualistic employees are also self-orientated, and

these values make them sensitive to the way the organisation treats and rewards them

(Erdogan & Liden, 2006). As mentioned in the previous chapter, Organ proposed that

organisational citizenship behaviours were performed as a social exchange between the

employee and the organisation (Organ, 1988, 1990). For individualistic employees. OCBs

are performed as a social exchange when they perceive they are being treated fairly.

However. if an individualistic employee perceives they are being treated unfairly it could

result in them reducing their performance of OCBs or withdrawing from the social

34

exchange altogether (Markus & Kitayama, 19(1). Researchers have found that the

relationship between perception of fairness and the performance of OCBs is weaker for

collectivists. Collectivist employees have a higher threshold for injustice than their

individualistic counterparts (Ergodan & Liden, 2006). It is thought that because

collectivists place a premium on maintaining the welfare of their in-group they feel

obligated to perform OCBs regardless of the cost to themselves.

Similar results were found when examining the relationship between organisational

commitment and the performance of OCBs. Organ and Ryan (1995) found that employees

who were highly committed to their organisation were more likely to engage in helping

behaviours than those with low levels of organisational commitment. While this might

reflect the relationship for individualistic employees, Francesco and Chen (2004) found

that the relationship between organisation commitment and the performance of OCBs was

weaker for collectivist employees. This belief that collectivists felt they were obligated to

perform OCBs was further strengthened by the findings of Blakely, Andrews and

Moorman (2005). Blakelyet al found that Chinese employees were more likely than

Canadian employees to view OCBs as in-rolc behaviour and that they would perform them

without the typical antecedents associated with OCB performance. It was suggested that

this was due to the Chinese employee's collectivist orientation, and that collectivist

employees were likely to view the performance of OCBs as part of their duty to ensure the

goals of their in-group. Due to collectivists association with obligation and loyalty to their

in-group it has led some researchers to question if OCBs would exist for collectivist

employees. They suggested that collectivists would perceive OCBs as in-role behaviours

that they were obligated to perform to advance the goals of the organisation and maintain

a harmonious relationship (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). All these findings suggest that

there are great differences in perception and performance of OCBs between individualistic

and collectivist employees.

35

The importance of Asian culture

Examining the differences between Western and Eastern cultures has become increasingly

important due to the growing influence Asian countries have on the world. Asia makes up

more than half of the world's population and out of almost seven billion people, four

billion of those live in Asian countries. In addition, Asia also contains three of the top live

most populous countries in the world (China, India and Indonesia). These growing

populations have also had a great influence on the world through their growing

economies. Following on from the success of the Japanese economy was the' Asian

Tigers,' whose rapid growth was considered a miracle. The Asian Tigers (Hong Kong,

Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) have experienced extraordinary economic growth

with highly educated and skiIled work forces over the last 50 years, which allowed them to

compete with the rich Western countries (paldam, 2003). Many of these countries came

from a traditional agricultural society and within one generation transformed themselves

into rapidly growing industrialised economies. While the hubble of their extraordinary

growth was burst in the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the power of the Asian economics is

on the rise again.

While the world is currently experiencing the worst recession in the last half century,

economists have stated that it is the Asian economies that wiIl lead the world out of this

recession (International Monetary Fund, 2010). Although many Western economics arc

suffering with high levels of unemployment and business closures, many Asian economies

have managed to rebound from the recession. The head of lMF's Asia and Pacific

Department, Anoop Singh, stated that Asian economies' share of the world's growth is

likely to increase, making Asia an economic powerhouse over the next few decades (IMP

Survey Online, 2010). Based on current trends, the IMF estimated that by 2030, Asia's

economy will be larger than that of the United States and the European Union combined.

The past bias of Western culture on psychological research has meant that many of the

assumptions of organisational citizenship behaviours were based solely on Western

36

samples and as mentioned previously, this dominance of the West in research could have

resulted in cultural forces being misinterpreted as being true for all individuals. With the

rising of influence of Asian culture on the global economy coupled with the effeds of

globalisation, it is important to ensure that organisational citizenship behaviour research

addresses the effects of culture. This thesis hopes to investigate the impact of culture on

the performance of organisational citizenship behaviours and address the past assumptions

of DCB research.

37

Chapter 3

Methodology

Research Methods in Psychology

Our understanding of the world around us has progressed thanks to the use of science.

From the Latin 'scientia' meaning knowledge, science is a system of acquiring knowledge

through the use of testable explanations and predictions. The techniques and methodology

used in natural sciences can be applied to other disciplines. Psychology. as an area of

research. grew when scientific methods were applied to our desire to understand the mind.

The human mind is still one of the most complex "machines" on earth, and computers arc

yet to match the complexity found in our brains. However. the mind is a mysterious being.

and we cannot look into the private thoughts, dreams, or emotions of anyone. and this is

why psychologists have used a scientific approach to better understand these thoughts and

behaviours. To address the questions that psychologists pose. a number of research

methods have been developed; certain research questions require specific approaches and

it is the psychologist's task to match the problem with the right approach (Creswell.

2003).

Quantitative and Qualitative approaches

Research methods differ on a number of points; type of data elicited. technique of

elicitation, type of design for monitoring change. amount of manipulation and quantitative

or qualitative use of data (Breakwell. Hammond. Fife-Schaw & Smith. 2006). Treatment

of the data as quantitative or qualitative creates the greatest divide between research

methodologies. Psychology is dominated by quantitative research methods, in part due to

the fact that it was the use of quantification that allowed psychology to grow as a research

area (Howitt & Cramer. 2008). Investigators using quantitative research methods tend to

use a positivist approach to the development of knowledge (Creswell, 2003; Johnson &

38

Onwuegbuzle, 2004). In addition, these research methods take an empirical approach to

the acquisition of knowledge, as it involves the quantifying or measurement of the

phenomenon (Charles & Mertler, 2002; Breakwell et al 2006; Langdrige & Hagger-

Johnson, 2(09). Quantitative purists believe that research should be objective (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzle, 2004), and should be concerned with the testing of predictions rather than

simply describing the object of study (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson, 2009). The

quantitative approach provides the researcher with precision and control; they are able to

isolate the variables to determine magnitude and frequency of the relationship between the

variables. To add to this control, the research is often conducted in highly controlled

settings, such as laboratories, allowing the researcher to reduce any external inlluences

that may affect the results (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson, 2009). The quantitative

approach lies at the heart of psychological research because of the control it provides

researchers, allowing them to produce objective and time- and context-free generalizations

(Nagel, 1986). However, quantitative research does have its opponents who believe that it

fails to capture the complexity of human nature (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson, 2009;

Howitt & Cramer, 2(08), treating participants as isolatable from their social context, and

as part of a collective, often ignoring differences that make people unique (Coolican,

2004) (see Table 1 for a more complete list of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative

approaches).

Table 1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research Adapted from Johnson & Onwuegbuzle (2004)

Strengths • Provides precise numerical data • Allows the testing and validating of

theories • Generalization of research findings

(when random samples of sufficient size are used)

• Researchers can construct experiments that limit the effects of extraneous variables

• Data collection methods are often quick to administer and to a large number of people

• Data analysis tends to be relatively quick (with the use of statistical software)

• Limits the effect of the researcher on the results

39

Weaknesses • Fails to capture the complexity of

human nature • Phenomena may be missed because

of focus on theory or hypothesis testing

• The results produced may be too abstract for the applications to specific situations, contexts or individuals

• Research is often conducted in unnatural and artificial settings

• Categories used by researchers may not reflect participants understandings

Qualitative research is often defined as the opposite of quantitative research measures. as

it does not use statistics and is subjective in nature. Investigators using qualitative

approaches usually take a constructivist (Guba & Lincoln, 11}~2; Creswell, 2(03) or an

advocacy/participatory (Creswell, 2003; Mertens, 2003) perspective. It is, "an inquiry

process of understanding" in which researchers develop a "complex, holistic picture,

analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants. and conducts the study in a natural

setting" (Creswell, 1998, p. 15). This approach is not only concerned with meaning. hut it

is also concerned with describing the qualities of a phenomenon (Langdrige & Hagger­

Johnson, 2(09). Qualitative research uses methods of inquiry such as case studics,

grounded theory studies, narratives, phenomenologies or ethnographies; the data collected

is open ended with the primary aim of developing themes or theories from the data

(Creswell, 2(03). Supporters of qualitative methods believe that quantification can miss

crucial aspects of the phenomenon being studied. They also believe that the human

experience is too intricate to be reduced to a few variables, which can occur in quantitative

research (Howitt & Cramer, 2(08). Qualitative research approaches acknowledge that

people have different experiences and even a group of people who may have witnessed the

same event, may interpret the event differently, thus showing that qualitative research

acknowledges the uniqueness of individuals. These research methods can therefore

produce unexpected insights from participants that may not have come to light if they

were using quantitative research measures and just ticking boxes in a questionnaire, for

example. This allows researchers to get an 'insider perspective' on the object of their

study.

However, qualitative research methods, rather than quantitative research methods, are

more dependent on the skills of the researchers. Parker (1994, p. 2) defined qualitative

research methods as "the interpretative study of a specified issue or problem in which the

researcher is central to the sense that is made". Therefore the findings of qualitative

research are dependent on the researchers' interpretation of that data. It has been argued

that qualitative research can be biased by the researcher's own preconceptions. Advocates

of qualitative research argue that what is known cannot be separated from the 'knower', as

40

they are the only source of reality (Guba, 1990, as seen in Johnson & Onwuegbuzle,

2004). However, even in quantitative research, preconceptions can be problematic, as

researchers continually narrow their research aims based on empirical evidence, which

may lead to the ignoring of other key factors as participants were never provided with the

opportunity to respond. A qualitative approach to research allows the investigator to gain

an individual's point of view and rich descriptive data, immersed in the everyday life of

participants. However, advocates of quantitative research argue that 'rich descriptive data'

is another way of implying anecdotal and unstructured data. They argue that qualitative

data lacks replicability and generalisation due to their small sample size and that the

traditional notions of validity and reliability cannot be applied to the data (Langdrigc &

Hagger-Johnson, 2(09). (See Table 2 for a complete list of strengths and weaknesses of

qualitative approaches)

Table 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative research adapted from Johnson & Onwuegbuzle (2004)

Strengths • Effective in describing complex

phenomena • Provides the participant's personal

understanding and experience of the phenomena

• Can be used to identify how the participant interprets the constructs under study

• Useful for study of a small number of cases in depth

• Data analysis is based on participants' categories of mean ing

• Can richly describe phenomena in the specific context it is based in

• Produces rich and detailed data

Mixed Methods

Weaknesses • Results cannot be generalized to

other people or settings • It is difficult to make predictions

from the data • Data collection is generally more

time consuming that quantitative methods

• Data analysis can be more time consuming

• The results can be iniluenced by the researcher's personal biases

Supporters of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms have been at loggerheads for

the last century (Johnson & Onwuegbuzle, 2004), with "one professing the superiority of

'deep. rich observational data' and the other the virtues of 'hard, generalizable' ... data"

(Sieber. 1973. p.1335). While the differences between the two research paradigms are

41

often stressed, the similarities between the two approaches are often overlooked (johnson

& Onwuegbuzle, 2004). Firstly, both approaches address research 4ucstions through the

use of empirical observation. Quantitative and qualitative methods "describe their data,

construct explanatory arguments from their data, and speculate ahout why the outcomes

they observed happened as they did" (Sechrest & Sidani, 1995, p. 78). Sccondly, both

approaches include safeguards to minimise confirmation bias and other sources of bias

(Sandelowski, 1986). Finally, it was suggested by Dzurec and Abraham (1993, p. 75) that

"the objectives, scope, and nature of inquiry are consistent across methods and across

paradigms."

A third research paradigm of mixed methods has been championed to help hridge the gap

between the debating camps of qualitative and quantitative research (Onwueghuzie &

Leech, 2005). Johnson & Onwuegbuzle (2004) defined mixed methods research as ..... the

class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative

research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study"

(p.17). In addition, they stated that the aim of mixed methods was to maximize the

strengths of both approaches while reducing the weaknesses. One of the first instances of

mixed methods was used by Campbell and Fiske ( 1959) who used multiple methods in

their study of the validation of psychological traits. Sieber (1973) highlighted that while

Campbell and Fiske used different quantitative approaches to rule out method effects, their

multiple methods approach encouraged other researchers to do the same. Following on

from this, it was suggested the combination of methodologies could be used in the same

study of a phenomenon (Denzin, 1978), which was named triangulation. It was suggested

that quantitative and qualitative approaches could complement each other as the use of

both approaches could, "uncover some unique variance which otherwise may have been

neglected by a single method" (Jick, 1979, p. 603). Other reasons for the use of mixed

methods have been postulated; for example, the results produced from one methodology

can be used to develop or inform the other method to be used (Greene, Caracelli &

Graham, 1989). As time has passed, mixed methods have gained more attention and is

considered to be a viable research approach (Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska &

42

Creswell, 2(05). For a list of strengths and weaknesses of the mi xed method approach see

Table 3.

Table 3 Strengths and Weaknesses 0/ Mixed Methods research adapted/rom Johnson & Onwuegbuzle (2004)

Strengths • Research can gain from the

strengths of both quantitati ve and qualitative approaches

• Can answer a broad range of research questions

• Can generate and test a grounded theory

• Use the strengths of one method to overcome the weakness of another method

• Provide stronger evidence through convergence of findings

• Add insight that might have been missed if only one approach had been used

Weaknesses • More time consuming • Requires familiarity with both

quantitative and qualitative methods

• Faces criticism from methodological purists who believe research should only be performed within one research paradigm

• May be more expensive to carry out

• May require a research team if two or more methods arc performed concurrently

A principle of mixed method research is that researchers should utilize a research design

that can most efficiently answer their research question. Greene et al (1989) discussed five

main rationales for conducting mixed method research: (I) triangulation (i.e.,

corroboration of findings from different methods); (2) complementarity (i.e., using a

different method to clarify the findings of another method); (3) initiation (i.e.,

contradictions or outliers in the results that lead to the re-framing of the research

question); (4) development (i.e., the findings of one methodology inform the other

method); and (5) expansion (i.e.; using different methods to expand the range of research).

With this in mind, investigators can determine if mixed methods would be an appropriate

means of addressing their research question. If it is the best means to address the research

question, the investigator must consider three issues: priority, implementation, and

integration when designing their research (Creswell, Plano Clark, Guttman and Hanson,

2003). Priority refers to whether quantitative or qualitative methods are given priority in

the study. Implementation refers to whether the quantitative or qualitative approaches arc

43

performed sequentially, in parallel or concurrently. Finally, integration refers to which

stage of the research process the quantitative and qualitative data is mixed.

Thesis Methodology Rationale

This study adopted a sequential exploratory strategy (Sec Figure I for Sequential

Exploration Strategy Design of this thesis), which is a two phase design with the intent

that the results of the first method will inform the second method (Greene et aI. 19X9). The

first phase of the design is a qualitative design, which is best suited to exploration; this

was then be followed by a quantitative approach. The premise of this design is that the

phenomena requires exploration (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2(06), which can he for a

number of reasons; for example, a researcher wants to see if results are suitable to

generalize results to different groups (Morse, 1991), to identify important variables to he

studied in a quantitative approach, or to explore a phenomenon in depth and then measure

its prevalence (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006).

The sequential exploratory strategy was adopted after a review of the literature highlighted

a number of issues within organisational citizenship behaviour research. Firstly, a number

of researchers have found contradictions to the traditional assumption of OCB

conceptualisation and performance. bringing into question if OCB research indeed

portrays actual citizenship behaviours accurately. Secondly. along with the contradiction

to the assumptions of OCB. there is very little understanding of the relationship between

cultural related variables and OCB conceptualisation and performance. While this

approach does require a substantial length of time to complete the qualitati ve and

quantitative data collection and analysis (Creswell. 2(03). it does give the study the ability

to explore organisational citizenship behaviours for individualist ~md collectivist

employees and then expand on the findings of the first study to a more generalizable

quantitative study.

44

Phase

Qualitative Data

Collection

Qualitative Data

Analysis

Quantitative Data

Collection

Quantitative Data

Analysis

Quantitative Data

Collection

Quantitative Data

Analysis

Procedure

Semi Structured

Interviews

Grounded

Theory

Questionnaire

Statistical analysis

of the data using

ANDVA

Questionnaire

Statistical analysis of

the data using

multiple regression

Figure 1 Sequential Exploration Strategy Design of Thesis

Study 1 - Methodology Rationale

Rationale

To elicit participants'

conceptualisation of

DCBs

To allow theories to

emerge which are

grounded in the data

To expand on findings

from the grounded

theory and test if they

can be generalized to a

lareer number of oeoole

To allow the comparison of

group means to identify

any differences between

the conditions

To allow expansion of

the findings of study 1

and 2

To determine if certain

motivations predicted

the performance of

citizenship behaviour

The aim of the first study was to gain an understanding of how employees perceived

organisational citizenship behaviours and their performance. Denzin and Lincoln (2000)

listed the five defining characteristics of qualitative research, which included, capturing

the individual's perspective and the examination of constraints of everyday life. With this

45

in mind, a qualitative approach seemed the most appropriate to capture employees'

perspective of citizenship behaviour and how they experience it in their context. As Dc

Waele and Harre (1979) said, "By taking the participants' interpretations seriously we

avoid the falsification of reality which occurs when self-reports arc confined to the replies

to questionnaires etc. which have been designed in advance by the investigation" (p. I X2).

To prevent forcing the data to fit into preconceptions about organisational citizenship

behaviour. a grounded theory approach was chosen as it allows theories to emerge from

the data rather than being influenced by the preconception of past research. In addition.

due to the desire not to be influence by preconceived notions of organisational citizenship

behaviours, no previously devised DCB frameworks were used to guide the participants.

rather participants were allowed to express any behaviour they believed to be DCBs.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a methodology that emphasises the generation of theory which is

'grounded' in the data rather than imposed prior to data collection (Chamlaz, 1995). The

grounded theory method was developed by sociologists Glaser and Strauss during their

research into people who were dying in hospitals (Glaser & Strauss. 1965, 1968; Strauss

& Glaser, 1970). In the I 960s, hospital staff very seldom discussed or acknowledged

dying with seriously ill patients. Glaser and Strauss investigated how dying occurred in a

variety of hospital settings - from oncology to neonatal departments. They observed how

and when terminally ill patients knew they were dying, and how they dealt with the news

(Glaser & Strauss, 1965). Glaser and Strauss wanted to develop a methodology that

allowed them to move from data to theory. The theories that would be developed would be

specific to the context and grounded in the data rather than rely on the constructs of pre­

existing theories. These methods and an emphasis on the development of theories from

research grounded in the data were outlined to other researchers with Glaser and Strauss's

publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967). The development of grounded

theory came at a time in sociological research when quantitative research methods were

46

dominant. Despite sociology's long history with qualitative methods, they were

considered anecdotal, biased, unsystematic and impressionistic. Much of the social

research took a positivism approach to research and stressed the usc of hypothetico­

deductive methods, or in other words, testing a theory from a deduced hypothesis. The

Discovery afGrounded Theory was a challenge to the orthodoxy by presenting a

systematic approach to qualitative research. The work of Glaser and Strauss helped

legitimise qualitative research methods as a credible choice of methodological approach in

its own right (Charmaz, 1995). This opened social research up to the real-world and

naturalistic data collection, and gave researchers a means to collect and analyse the data.

Much ofpsychology's history has been characterised by the usc ofhypothetico-deductive

methods. In this method. theories are derived from hypothesis. which are then empirically

tested. Ground theory on the other hand presents a different approach, as it docs not

discount the use of hypothetico-deductive methods. but rather objects to the 'overly

abstracted and untestable social theory' (Howitt & Crammer, 200S, p. 320). The grounded

theory approach requires theory to develop from a researcher's Wlderstanding of the

complexity of the research topic, and by weaving the complex data into a coherent whole.

Theories are not tested within grounded theory, but rather the researchers' attempt to

create a theory which fits the categories which can also be applied to new data. The end

product of grounded theory is a theory which provides an explanatory framework to aid

with understanding the phenomena being researched. One of the major differences

between the grounded theory approach and the hypothetico-deductive method is that

developing the theory is a constant and on-going process. A grounded theorist would

collect data from one case and begin the analysis process and then use the findings of this

analysis to guide the data collection of the next participant, rather than collecting the data

from all participants and then performing the analysis. Charmaz (1995) highlighted a

number of the distinguishing characteristics of grounded theory. These include the delay

of conducting a literature review until after the completion of the analysis, the integration

of data collection and data analysis, theoretical sampling of participants, analysis and

47

coding driven by the data. memo writing and finally. the development of theories during

each step of the data collection and analysis.

Literature Review

[n most research methods. the literature review is carried out before the planning of the

study. Researchers examine the previous literature on a topic and try to huild on the

findings of past studies. thereby advancing the research area. However. the grounded

theory method advocates performing the literature review after the data has been collected

and the memo writing has been completed. Grounded theory stresses the point that the

theory should be grounded in the data. and not based on the findings of any previous

studies. It is thought that the researcher should take a 'tabula rasa' approach. so as not to

be influenced by past literature when performing analysis of the data and thereby

concentrating on the theory emerging from the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) believed

that the literature review should be used to assess the adequacy of the analysis of the data.

The analysis may be integrated into the past literature, but if it fails to deal with the past

literature. then the researcher may need to look at a reformulation of the analysis.

However. some researchers have advocated other approaches. such as skimming the

literature to provide a framework to identify the main features of the topic being studied.

Breakwell et at (2006) highlighted that the avoidance of the literature review until the end

of the analysis is to ensure that researchers would not approach the study with

preconceptions about the topic. However. he believed that this did not mean ignoring prior

research completely. By reviewing the previous literature it allows the researchers to avoid

repeating studies that have already been performed. The use of the prior literature will

allow researchers to develop a maximally useful research question. Willig (2004) also

highlighted that grounded theory may be used in situations where there were gaps in the

research literature. It may be that most past studies have used quantitative methods. and

this could mean that certain research questions were not adequately answered. The thesis

use of a sequential exploration strategy was due to the questions raised by other

48

researchers over the main assumptions of organisational citizenship behaviours.

Organisational citizenship behaviours were originally developed from qualitative

interviews performed by Smith, Organ and Near ( 1983). In these interviews, Smith et al

interviewed several lower level managers and asked them to provide examples of helpful

behaviours that were not a requirement of the job. It was from these qualitative intcrviews

that the first measure of OCBs was developed, which subsequently led to a wealth of

quantitative research. A return to the qualitative approach. could addres~ some of the

discrepancies noted in the first chapter, however. this decision was made once an in depth

review of the literature had been performed. While there is some debate as to how much of

the prior literature should be used before the start of research, what remains is the

principle that a researcher should not be tied to any particular theoretical position.

Breakwell et al suggested that the researcher should take the position of 'theoretical

agnosticism' rather than 'theoretical ignorance' (2006, p. 350). To adhere to thc principles

of grounded theory, care was taken to ensure that the data collection and analysis was not

influenced by the past literature.

Data Collection and Theoretical Sampling

Grounded theory does not require any particular type of data, but some forms of data arc

better than others. Interviews are the most commonly used type of data but researchers

could also use transcripts from focus groups, field notes or documentary sources

(Breakwell et ai, 2006; Howitt & Cramer, 2(08). However, Charmaz (1995, p. 33)

recommends that the data used should be 'full' or 'thick' written descriptions. This does

mean that most of the data used in quantitative research would be unsuitable for grounded

theory, as it does not provide the detail required. Data collection for study I utilized semi

structured interviews, to allow the elicitation of 'full' and 'thick' descriptions by the

participants. This type of interview uses an interview schedule with a list of predetermined

questions; however, it does not rely on the rigorous application of the schedule. If a

participant brings up a point of interest, it can be elaborated on, to allow the discovery of

concepts that may have been missed with the use of quantitative methods.

49

Grounded theory data collection and data analysis are interwoven, as the data analysi~ will

shape data collection. Based on the themes and theories emerging from the analysis,

researchers may return and collect more data. Like many other qualitative research

methods, grounded theory uses non-probability sampling, and in particular, theoretical

sampling:

"Theoretical sampling is the process of data col/ection/ol' generating them)' wherehy the

analyst jointly collects. codes and analyzes his (sic) data and decides II'hat data to collcct

next and where to find them. ill order to develop his theory as i/ ellU'rges. This process (!l

data collection is controlled hy the emerging theory" (Glaser & Strauss. /967. p. 45).

Sampling, in quantitative research methods, is guided by the need to create a

demographically representative subset of the population to create data that can be

comparable. Sampling in grounded theory is purposive rather than representative, and

used to build up the emerging theories from the analysis. The sampling may focus on a

particular individual. re-interviewing them to further discuss points they brought up, or

interviewing a range of people, or by simply focusing on a particular issue. Theoretical

sampling is to continue until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is:

" ... to gather data until each category is saturated. This means until (a) no new or

relevant data seems to emerge regarding a category. (b) the category is well developed ill

terms of its properties and dimensiolls demonstrating variation and (c) the relationships

among categories are well established and validnted." (Strauss & Corbin. 1998. p.212).

The use of theoretical sampling is beneficial as it reduces the chance of the researcher

amassing large amounts of data that may be irrelevant to the topic. However, theoretical

sampling should be conducted in the later stages of analysis, as performing it too soon

could risk imposing theoretical concepts on the data too early in the process (Charmaz,

1995).

50

Open Coding, Categories and Constant Comparison

Once the researcher has collected a sufficient amount of data, the next step is to begin

coding. Coding is common to most forms of qualitative research; however, the coding for

grounded theory is different from some other forms of coding within qualitative research.

Content analysis creates coding criteria prior to the collection of data, and from there the

researcher will record the frequencies of each instance of the code and this will then be

tabulated or analysed statistically. Content analysis has been criticized as researchers

could try to force their observations into ill-fitting categories. This goes against the main

principle of grounded theory, which indicates that theories should be grounded in the oata.

To counteract the risk of forcing theory to fit the data, grounded theory uses open coding

or substantive coding. Open coding involves the researcher examining the data closely,

whereby going line by line will create a code based on the content of that line and what it

'represents' (Potter, 1997). The use of open coding ensures that the researchers' feet are

kept firmly grounded in the data (Howitt & Cramer, 2(08) and prevents the researcher

from over-interpreting the data and incorrectly attributing 'motives, fears, or unresolved

personal issues' (Charmaz, 1995, p.37) to the participants. With the creation of codes, the

researcher has to ensure that the codes 'fit the data', and that the codes describe the item

or activity correctly. Open coding will generate a large list of concepts, and some of these

concepts will reoccur within the data. To organise this expanding list of codes, the

researcher will try to organise these codes into categories. Categories ground together

codes that share central features or characteristics. Early categories tend to be of a low

level of abstraction, with a description of the codes they include. For example, a category

labelled 'emotion' could include codes of anger, sadness, and happiness. As the analysis

progresses, categories will develop at higher levels of abstraction, thus moving from

descriptive to analytic. Willig (2004) explained that researchers should utilize the words of

the participants when developing the categories as it helps researchers avoid implanting

existing theories into the analysis. To allow the theory to emerge from the data, constant

comparison is used. Constant comparison ensures that the researcher does not continually

build up categories, but also breaks them down into smaller units of meaning. Constant

comparison involves the researcher looking for similarities and differences between and

51

within the categories and codes and is performed over the lifetime of the project.

Comparison between two categories may reveal that they cannot be differentiated and

should be combined to form one category. Researchers would also look for differences

within categories which may result in the creation of subcategories. the revision of the

category. or the creation of a new separate category (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson. 2(09).

Having developed categories and established the relationship between the categories. a

researcher needs to start negative case analysis (e.g. cases that do not fit). Identifying these

negative cases allows researchers to elaborate the emerging theory and add depth to the

theory. The aim of constant comparison and negative case analysis is to develop the

categories and the relationships between these categories which in turn will aid the theory

to emerge from the data.

Theoretical Memo Writing

Memo writing is the stage in which researchers explore the data rather than describe and

categorise it (Howitt & Cramer. 2008). With the build up of codes and categories,

theoretical memos aid the researcher to push the theoretical development forward. Memo

writing starts at the beginning of analysis and continues to the very end. The memos act as

a reflection of the data; they are the researchers' thoughts about anything regarding the

development of theory. Unlike the categories which have to 'fit the data', memos can take

any form. They can be hunches, questions regarding a new sample, thoughts on the

refinements of categories or explanations of modifications made. They are thought to lie at

the heart of theory generation, stimulating the researcher's theoretical sensitivity and

creativity, and helping researchers determine which categories are the most important for

further analysis (Breakwell et ai, 2006). In addition they also act as a public record of the

researcher's thought progression to the eventual theory generation. The memos can be

recorded in a notebook which logs how the categories may be linked together, charting the

relationships and interdependencies. The memos should also be linked with the data, and

they should include an archetypal example from the data, supporting the hunches and

insights written about in the memo. Memos can also take the form of diagrams; a flow

52

diagram could be used to display the key concepts and how they relate to each other.

When discussing how researchers should perform theoretical memo writing, Kathy

Charmaz (1995) made the following suggestion:

"{{you are at a loss ahout what to write ahuut. /ook/iJr the codes that you haw used

repeatedly in your dnta collection. Theil start elaboratillR Oil these ('odes. KCl'P co/ln·ting

data. keep codillR and keep refinil1R your idea throuRh writillR /I/Ore and./imher dCI'e/opcti

memos" (p. 43).

The descriptions of grounded theory methodology often consider theoretical memo

writing as the transitional stage between the coding of the data and the theory generation.

However, as stated previously, the memo writing is conducted throughout thc data

analysis process. The generation of theory is not produced because of a sudden spark of

divine inspiration; it is developed from the application of the grounded theory principles

and the work of the researcher. Grounded theory is not sequential but rather a back and

forward process of constant examination and refinement of ideas and concepts. Memo

writing helps researchers to explore the concepts that emerge from the data and aids with

eventually turning the data into theory.

Development of Theory

The most critical stage of grounded theory is when theoretical saturation is reached, and

the researcher now focuses on the important core categories. coding. and the relationship

between them with the aim of generating a theory. Strauss and Corbin ( 1994) defined

theory as the following: "Theory consists of plausible relationships proposed among

concepts and set of concepts" (p.278). Theory generation is not only the key to the

grounded theory method, but Glaser and Strauss (1967) believed it should also yield more

general theories.

53

"Since substantive theory is grounded in research on one particular suhstantiw: area

(work, juvenile delinquency, medical education, mental health) it lIIight be taken to apply

only to that specific area. A theory at such a conceptuallel'el, hOll'el'er. lIIay hlll'l'

important general implications and relevance, and hecolIIl' almost automlltically a

springboard or stepping stone to the development of a groUluiedformal (or as it i.I' //lore

usually said, 'genera/') theOly ... Substantive theor), is a strategic link in the/ormlllation

and generation (?f grounded formal theory. We helieve that although fonnal theory ('(Ill be

generated directly from the data, it is more desirahle, and usually necessary, to start the

formal theoryfrom a substantive one" (G/aser & Strauss, /967, p. 79)

However there is a danger with the process from substantive theory to general theory. as

the theory becomes more general. it will become less and less grounded in the data.

However, this problem could be minimised if the researcher engages in constant

comparison, as this should reduce the risk of developing a theory that goes far beyond the

data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) believed that the development of the theory was nol the

end of the research process. "When generation of theory is the aim. however. one is

constantly alert to emergent perspectives, which will change and develop his theory.

These perspectives can easily occur on the final day of study or when the manuscript is

reviewed in page proof: so the published word is not the tinal one. but only a pause in the

never ending process of generating theory" (p. 40).

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Grounded Theory

One of the great virtues of grounded theory is that it " .. ,encourages a slow motion reading

of text and transcripts that should avoid the common qualitative research trap of trawling a

set of transcripts for quotes to illustrate preconceived ideas" (Potter. 1998. p. 127).

Grounded theory methods advocate that the codes and categories should 'tit the data'

rather than trying to make the data fit the codes and categories. thus allowing researchers

to create a rich and detailed view into a participant's world. While we cannot be sure that

the theory generated from grounded theory methods is not influenced hy preconceived

54

ideas, the use of the guidelines proposed by Glaser and Strauss should minimise the ciTed

any preconceived idea may have on the emergent theory. Grounded theory allows

researchers to capture a participant's world with rich detail; detail that may have been lost

if quantitative methods were used. However, some researchers have criticised the quality

of information that can be gathered from its use. 'The method is at its best where there is

an issue that is tractable from a relatively common sense actor's perspective ... the

theoretical notions developed are close to the everyday notions of the participant. .. how far

is grounding derived not from theorizing but from reproducing common sense theories as

if they were analytic conclusions?" (Potter, 1998, p.127). This is a criticism that could be

applied to any qualitative method that gives the participant a voice, but it could be argued

that it is the 'common sense' actor's perspective that is the strength of qualitative methods.

The use of qualitative methods that give the participant a voice can lead to astonishing

unexpected insights into a phenomenon.

Howitt and Cramer (2008) suggested that the use of grounded theory encourages a

collection of pointless data. With the delay of the literature review until atter the data has

been collected and the theoretical memos written, it could leave researchers with no clear

criteria to decide what topics to research before the data collection begins. In addition, this

also suggests that there is a risk that the method could generate little useful information for

the amount of time and effort required to perform grounded theory. This would be

intensified if the researcher has failed to produce an appropriate research question, and so

uses grounded theory as the only available choice for analysis. However, as mentioned

previously, there are arguments for performing a skimming of the literature review before

data collection so as to give researchers a framework to begin with, as long as they do not

tie themselves to a particular theoretical viewpoint. These points were not an issue for

study 1, as the literature review had been conducted prior to data collection and in addition

a concrete research question had been established.

A major debate among grounded theorists is whether to use the full version or the

abbreviated method. The full version of grounded theory requires a lot of time and effort

55

by the researcher, which has led many researchers to use the grounded theory methods on

the analysis once the data has been collected. This means that the first stage of grounded

theory where data collection and analysis are merged is being abandoned by some

researchers; therefore it would mean that the researcher is unable to go back to collect

more data if they wish to broaden or refine the analysis. Willig (2004) stated that the

abbreviated version should never be a researcher's first choice; it should only be used in

situations when time and resources prevent the researcher from using the full version.

Charmaz (1995, p.30-31) argued that the full version of grounded theory observes the

world from the 'outside in', taking an objectivist position focusing on the social process;

while the abbreviated version examines the world 'from inside out', with a subjective

position focusing on how the world appears to the participant. While the debatc between

the use of the full version and the abbreviated version continues, Glascr and Strauss

(1967) did invite their readers to use the grounded theory guidelines flexibly in their own

way. Study I adopted the abbreviated method due to issues regarding ordering effects on

the analysis of the data. Two groups of participants were interviewed, one group of British

participants and another group of Asian participants. If the full version of grounded theory

was to be used. there would be questions regarding which group of participant's data

should be analysed first. The aim of this study was to identify both British and Asian

employees' experience of organisational citizenship behaviours without forcing the

preconceived assumptions of OCBs on their conceptualisation of the concept. If the

British participants' interviews were analysed first, there is a risk that their responses

would affect the data collection of the Asian participants (and vice versa). Therefore, all

data was collected before the data analysis process was begun; however, the data analysis

process did attempt to stay as close to the tenets of grounded theory as possible.

Regardless of the criticism placed on grounded theory, it is an extremely useful tool for

researchers who would like to capture the rich details of participants' lives. It also

facilitates the generation of theory that is grounded in the data rather than being influenced

by theories generated using quantitative methods that may not truly capture the

complexity of human nature.

56

Study 2 - Methodology Rationale

The second study examined some of the features that were identified from the participant

responses in the first study. Based on the responses of participants from the first study

regarding their various conceptualisations of organisational citizenship behaviours. it was

decided that the following two studies would adopt the model presented by Williams and

Anderson (1991). Their model categorised organisational citizenship behaviours by the

target of their behaviours, the organisation or individuals.

A quasi experimental approach was chosen for the second study, as it would allow a

quantitative examination of these features in real world setting without the random

allocation of participants.

Quasi Experimental Design

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, psychology embraced the experimental methods

imported from the natural sciences in an effort to produce robust findings. Pavlov (1927)

believed that "experimental investigation ... should lay a solid foundation for the future of

true science of psychology". These experimental methods have become the backbone of

psychological research as they provide a clear route to testing hypotheses. In addition they

also allow the researcher control over the independent variables and participant allocation

in the hope of allowing researchers to identify what is responsible for any changes in the

dependent variable. When performing research, investigators must be careful when

designing experiments to ensure that the effects of any possible external influences are

minimised. This is in order to ensure that any change in the dependent variable is due to

the manipulations of the independent variable. rather than any unknown or unmeasurable

variable. An experiment is when a researcher has complete control over the independent

variable and they control the effect of extraneous variables (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson.

2009).

57

There are many advantages to the experimental approach and it is considered the gold

standard among the scientific community, but we must remember that it is not the only

means of generating useful data. True experiments provide the best method to draw casual

inferences with confidence. However, it is not always possible to carry out a true

experiment because of the research question and practical or ethical issues. In these

situations a researcher may carry out what is known as a quasi-expcrimental design,

which, " ... resemble experiments but are weak on some of the characteristics. Quasi­

experiments include a comparison of at least two levels of independent variahles, hut the

manipulation is not always under the experimenter's control" (Raulin & Graziano. 1994,

p. 1124), Quasi-experimental design should not be seen as inferior to true experimental

design. The use of a quasi-experimental design may be the next logical step to test if

findings from laboratory based experiments are true in a real world setting. There arc two

main ways in which quasi-experiments ditfer from true experiments. Firstly, the

researcher has no control over the manipulation of the independent variable. and secondly,

it is not possible to randomly allocate participants to groups.

There are a number of research questions that cannot be answered using true experiments

because participants cannot be randomly allocated to groups for practical reasons or

because it would be unethical to do so. If a researcher was studying the effects of divorce

on young children. they would compare children whose parents have divorced, with

children whose parents are still married. There would be no possibility of randomly

allocating children to the divorce or non-divorced parent groups. By the very nature of

social and applied psychological research. research in the field often means that it is not

possible to allocate participants into the conditions at random. In the case of study 2,

participants could not be randomly allocated to groups, as the groups being investigated

were country based (United Kingdom and Indonesia) and culture based (Individualist and

Collectivist). Study 2 used country and cultural orientation as independent variables,

which of course cannot be manipulated by the researcher. The final independent variahle

was that of the scenario designs that were manipulated. Six scenarios were created

presenting three scenarios in which a co-worker used OeBs and three scenarios where

58

impression management behaviours were performed. Participants were asked to read the

scenario and rate if they perceived the behaviours were OeBs or impression management

(for more information on the development of the scenarios. refer to study 2 meth(xloillgy

section).

Study 3 - Methodological Rationale

Findings from study I and study 2 were used to shape the development of study :I. which

investigated the effect of motivation on the choice of type of citizenship behaviours to be

performed.

Correlational Studies

Correlational studies are described as 'non-experimental'. as the variables are not

manipulated by the researcher (for example. the independent variables could be gender.

which of course cannot be manipulated by the researcher); instead the researcher uses

correlations and regressions to study the association between the independent and

dependent variables.

To study the effect of violence on television. a researcher could distribute questionnaires

to a large number of people asking them about the amount of violent programmes they

watch and to what extent they acted aggressively in different situations. The researcher

would be looking for an association between the two variables; the term association is

used to emphasise the correlational study design as it is difficult (if not impossible) to

infer causality. If a researcher found that there was an association between violent

programmes and aggression, it would suggest that watching violent programmes on

television would cause aggressive behaviour. However, the causality eould operate in the

opposite direction with aggressive people choosing to watch more violent programmes

than individuals who are less aggressive. There may also be a third variable which

59

accounts for the association between the two variables. For example. it may be that people

from lower socio-economic backgrounds watch more television programmes in general

than people from higher socio-economic backgrounds. and it is their socio-economic

situation that causes them to behave more aggressively. If that was true. it would mean

that violent television programs would have not affected an already aggressive behaviour.

There are a number of reasons researchers would use correlational studies. Firstly. they

can be used because many hypotheses cannot be studied using experimental methods. For

example. if a researcher is investigating the effects of smoking on health. they cannot

force one group of participants to smoke. and force another group not to smoke. Instead.

this hypothesis can be investigated by examining the correlations between the number of

cigarettes smoked and the probability of suffering ill health by using individuals who

already smoke. Secondly. the use of correlational studies allows researchers to gather

large amounts of data on a number of variables more rapidly and etliciently than it would

be possible with an experimental design. It is for these reasons that a correlational design

was selected for study 3. Once again. this study focused on individualism and collectivism

as determinates of behaviour. which could not be randomly allocated. In addition. the

correlational design also allowed the collection of data on a number of variables quite

efficiently.

One of the major limitations of correlational studies is the difficulty in establishing cause

and effect. Researchers using correlational studies are simply observing the differences

that may exist between two variables. but there is no way that they can isolate the true

casual variable. For example. if we are looking at differences in performance between

male and female participants on self-estimation of IQ. there may be other variables that

are related that could have a confounding effect. We only know that there is some sort of

relationship between the variables but our evidence does not permit us to make inferences

about cause or its direction. While correlation studies are generally thought of as inferior

to experimental design. they are often the best we can hope for in many real world

60

situations; however. we must be careful when trying to interpret the results of these

studies.

Additional methodological issues for Study 2 and Study 3

Both study 2 and study 3 were conducted using on line questionnaires. which brings up a

number of additional methodological issues.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires are a popular means of data collection and while they may seem quick and

easy to devise. many psychological scales may take months. if not years. f()r a researcher

to devise. pilot. standardise and implement. taking time and effort to ensure the scale has

reliability and validity. Questionnaires are research tools that allow researchers to gather

structured information about the occurrence of a particular behaviour. opinions. beliefs or

attitudes. They are particularly useful when the researcher wants to measure something

that is not directly observable or not precisely definable, such as a theoretical construct.

They are a particularly valuable method of data collection. allowing researchers to gather

data from a large number of people relatively quickly and efficiently; but this may be at

the expense of detailed and in-depth information. Proponents of qualitative research

methods have stressed that the use of qualitative research designs allows researchers to

elicit the true beliefs of participants. Questionnaires. on the other hand. often have to

balance the trade off between the simplicity of the questions. to ensure an adequate

number of responses. and the depth of information that is collected. However. a good

questionnaire should be able to maximise the quality of data collected without increasing

the size of the questionnaire unnecessarily.

61

Devising a Good Questionnaire

Questionnaires should be as short as possible, making it quick and easy for participants to

complete, unless there is a strong reason for doing otherwise. For this reason, all questions

included in both study 2 and study 3 had a rationale for their inclusion. ]n addition, the

language of the questionnaire should be appropriate for the sample that will be used; the

wording of a questionnaire aimed at schoolchildren would be greatly different to one

aimed at middle managers at a finance company. The use of technical terms should be

avoided; however, if the technical term cannot be substituted, an explanation of the term

should be provided. In the case of study 2, participants were required to rate if the scenario

was an organisational citizenship behaviour or an impression management motivated

behaviour. As it was possible that the participants may not be familiar with these concepts,

a definition was provided for the term.

Both study 2 and study 3 utilized closed questions rather than open ended questions.

Open ended question gives the respondent the scope to answer in whatever way they feel

is appropriate. On the other hand, closed questions give the respondent a set number of

responses, and they answer the questions by selecting one or more of the choices. A

common criticism of closed questions is that they limit the possible responses, and in a

worst case scenario, it could mean that a researcher could collect data that had little

meaning to the respondent, as they were forced to pick a response that is not true to them.

Open-ended questions generate more detailed information than closed questions, and

provide responses that express the participant's true feelings, but, this is at a cost. The use

of open-ended questions can increase the length of time it takes to complete the

questionnaire, but also makes the responses more difficult to score and analyse. On the

other hand, however, closed questions enable the quick collection of reliable information

which is also easy to analyse. To ensure that the questionnaire gave the respondents the

appropriate choices of responses and that the scales selected were suitable, the interviews

from study I were kept in mind.

62

Response Scales

There are a number of response scales available to the researcher. such as the equal

appearing intervals (Thurstone. 1931), the semantic differential (Osgood, Suci &

Tannenbaum, 1957) or summanted ratings (Likert, 1932). Both study 2 and study:l

utilized the summated, or Likert scale as it is more commonly known, in which the

respondents are asked to specify their level of agreement to each of the statements

presented, from strongly agree to strongly disagree, usually on a five point scale

(sometimes seven or more). The respondents score on each of these items is then added up

to give the respondent's overall attitude score.

The Likert scale is popular in psychological research as it is easy to construct, administer,

score and analyse the data. However, there are some concerns over the 'undecided'

response, as it is ambiguous. If a respondent picks the 'undecided' score does it imply that

they have a neutral position, no opinion on the statement, or does it imply an 'on the

fence' position with the respondent tom between feeling for and against the statement?

The respondent could even have picked the 'undecided' response because they feel that

the statement does not apply to them at all. In addition, a respondent with a score in the

middle of the distribution is quite ambiguous. The score could reflect that the participant

has responded to a lot of the statements with 'undecided'; or their score could comprise of

a collection of responses that are strongly for and against the statements, which could

indicate that the scale is in fact measuring two different attitudes.

Issues within Questionnaires Development

Another issue that has to be controlled is response set or response bias, which is a type of

cognitive bias which can influence the way participants respond to the questions. One

example of this is social desirability, where a respondent will attempt to answer the

questions in a way that makes them 'look good'. This could be that the respondent is

attempting to answer in a way that portrays them in the best light, giving responses to

'please the researcher' or just honest responses that are positively biased. Responding in a

63

socially desirable manner does not always involve the participant lying; often people will

respond in that manner without realising it. Some researchers attempt to counter this by

including a social desirability (sometimes known as a 'lie') scale, which consists of a

series of questions that if a respondent was to consistently answer these questions in a

positive manner they would be thought of as being too 'saintly' to be realistic and often

excluded from the analysis. The inclusion of a social desirability scale would depend on

the topic of research. Some topics may not require a social desirability scale, for example,

psychological concepts that the participant would be unaware of. While social desirability

is a concern for both the questionnaires, the topic of research does concern organisational

citizenship behaviours and impression management motives. One of the issues of

contention in OCB research is that they can be performed for impression management

reasons; with that in mind, any individuals who have high levels of impression

management motives are likely to respond in a socially desirable manner, as they are

concerned with maintaining their image. However, even if this is the case, an individual

who is motivated by impression management motives, may respond to the questionnaire in

a way that may reflect how they would act in their working environment. [n addition, as

the participant information stresses that their responses are confidential and anonymous,

this could encourage more honest responses.

Another issue to consider is that of response acquiescence, which is a tendency to agree

with all the statements presented in a scale. The easiest way for researchers to deal with

this problem is to make some of the questions negatively worded. Providing a mix of

positively and negatively worded questions will keep the questions unpredictable and

force a respondent to think about each question or at the very least, a respondent who

always agrees with all the statements will have a neutral score, rather than an extremely

high score. All scales used in study 2 and study 3 included both positive and negatively

worded items to avoid response acquiescence.

Demand characteristics should also be considered. Orne (1962) defined demand

characteristics as "the totality of cues which convey an experimental hypothesis to the

64

subjects" (p.779). When a participant volunteers to take part in a study, it has been argued

that they want to cooperate with the researcher and help the researcher achieve the results

the researcher was 'looking for' (Langdrige & Hagger-Johnson, 2(09). If the participant is

aware of the research hypotheses or tries to guess the nature of the experiment, they may

respond in a manner to confirm the hypothesis in order to be a 'good' participant and not

ruin the research. This unnatural responding can compromise the ecological validity of the

research (Orne, 1962). In one of his studies Omes' participants were willing to spend

several hours adding numbers on a number sheet and then to tear them up once the sheet

was completed. It is thought that the participants believed the experiment was a test of

endurance and that motivated them to keep going. While a true experiment can randomly

allocate participants in a double blind manner, this is not always possihle in the case of

quasi-experimental design. In this case, researchers must be aware of the effect demand

characteristics can have on the results and attempt to keep the true agenda of the research

hidden from the participants. It must also be taken into consideration that this thesis aims

to identify the effect of cultural related variables on OCBs. Collectivist individuals arc

driven to place the needs of their in-group over their own needs. It could be that the

employees who choose to participate in the studies may be more collectively orientated, as

they may believe that helping with the research could help their organisation: which could

affect the response of the participants. Measuring individualism and collectivism as an

individual difference may help to reduce an over representation of collectivist in the

sample.

Establishing Reliability and Validity

Many scales attempt to measure variables for which there is no universally agreed

measure; therefore, researchers have to ensure the measurement is accurate and consistent.

Researchers have to establish external reliability and internal reliability. Studies 2 and 3

use psychological scales which have been developed by other psychologists. Scales

selected to be used for the questionnaires were assessed for their suitability to measure the

desired concept and the scales reliability. In addition. once the questionnaire had been

65

performed the Cronbach's Alpha was also assessed using statistical software. The

Cronbach 's Alpha (Cronbach, 1951) is the equivalent of the average of all the possible

split half reliability values that could be calculated (Coolican. 20(4). Values of 0.70 or

higher are considered acceptable; however tests that require participants to think inwardly

about their responses are likely to have a lower internal consistency than tests of ability.

Values of 0.60 or higher are sometimes considered acceptable (Youngman, 1979).

While a researcher may have established that a test has high reliability. it may be lacking

in validity, that is, it may not be measuring what it was originally intended to measure. As

Kline (2000) highlighted, establishing reliability is necessary but this alone is not

sufficient to demonstrate that the test has validity; however. a scale cannot be valid if it is

not reliable. This was a concern for the scenario design of study 2. A scale's validity can

be assessed in a number of ways. The most basic test of validity is that of face validity; a

test has face validity if it is obvious what it is measuring or basically does it 'look valid?'

Kline (2000) argued that the strength of face validity is that it has the potential for

motivating test takers, who may be able to see what the test is measuring and deem the test

worthwhile. However, the weakness of a test with strong face validity, is that it becomes

easier to fake and more susceptible to demand characteristics. Another type of validity that

was used in the scenario design was content validity which involves "the systematic

examination of the test content to determine whether it covers a representati ve sample of

the behaviour domain to be measured" (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 114). This typically

involves subject matter experts (SME's) evaluating the test items against the specifications

of the test; using their expertise in the topic area, they will judge if the test has tested for

all aspects of the concept or if the test items are disproportionately weighted towards one

aspect of the domain compared to others. Subject matter experts were used to assess DeB

and impression management behaviours to be included in the scenarios, which will be

discussed further in the study 2 methodology section.

66

Issues with Translation

The previous section illustrated some of the issues researchers are faced with when

designing a questionnaire; trying to translate a questionnaire into another language which

may have an altogether different cultural outlook can be equally problcmatic for

researchers. RogIer (1999) provided an example of issues that might arise through

translation from the Diagnostic Interview Schcdule (DIS). RogIer tried to translate the

question 'I felt I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends'

from English to Spanish, which he found quite problematic. When translating text from

one language to another, the translator will try to stay as close to the original wording as

possible; however problems can arise with the use of colloquialisms. How does one

translate 'the blues' into Spanish? Azul is the Spanish equivalent of the word 'blue';

however the meaning of 'the blues' does not survive the translation. Roglcr eventually

translated the item by rewording it to 'I could not get over feeling sad even with help from

my family or friends'. While a translator would not nonnally deviate from the original

wording, in some cases. there are no alternatives (Beins, 2009), rather than translating

word for word, we translate the meaning of the statement.

To ensure the comparability of items from one language to another, back translation is

often used (Brislin. 1970; Banville, Desrosiers and Genet-Vole!. 2000). Back translation

involves translating the item from the original language to another language. and this is

then followed by another translator translating the document back into the original

language; this ensures that the meaning is not lost in translation. This was performed for

the questionnaires used in study 2 and study 3 to ensure that the meaning was not lost in

translation. Translation was not an issue for study I. As the translation of an interview

would be an especially difficult task and would require an interpreter. which would in

itself cause concern for the translation of meaning. participants were recruited from MBA

programs at universities. This allowed for the recruitment of participants who were

proficient in the English language.

67

E-Research

The term e-research refers to research conducted on the internet. and this includes

searching for literature, publication, dissemination of research in web journals, but more

often is used to refer to data collection methods. It has become increasingly common for

researchers to use the internet as a means of data collection. with most of this done in the

form of on-line questionnaires. One of the main concerns regarding c-research is the

representative nature of the sample; while internet usage is bewrning more accessible.

there is still a worry that internet users would represent individuals with a higher socio­

economic background. However, this was not a concern for study 2 and ~. as the sample

had already been organised (employees from selected organisations) and the usc of on line

questionnaires just provided a more convenient means of response. In addition. the usc of

on line questionnaires verses the traditional paper pencil test was chosen as it could mean

that participants felt more reassured that their supervisors would not see their responses. as

it has been found that some participants may be willing to take part in on-line based

research or provide more honest responses due to the anonymity provided. especially with

sensitive research topics (Turner, Ku, Rogers. Lindberg. Pleck. & Stonenstein. 1998).

There are obvious advantages to conducting questionnaires on line. such as, larger sample

sizes. low cost. reduction in missing data. ability to export data directly to statistical

programmes, ability to circulate the link to the questionnaires via email lists. and the

ability to access hard to reach communities (Rhodes, Bowie & Hergenrather, 2003;

Gosling, Vazire. Srivastava & John. 2004; Whitehead. 2007). However. e-research and

data collection do introduce certain issues with regard to data collection. Researchers have

to consider respondents submitting multiple responses or mischievous submissions

(Buchanan. 2000; Gosling et ai, 2004). However. some of the current on-line

questionnaire websites do give researchers some control over this issue by providing

features to only allow one response per computer. logging the IP address of repeat

responders, or providing a unique URL address for e-mail invitations to the survey (while

maintaining respondent's anonymity). For the questionnaires in study 2 and study 3 only

one response per computer was allowed to prevent multiple responses.

68

The ease of use of on-line questionnaires for the researcher has resulted in a proliferation

of web studies and other forms of on-line research (e.g. website pop-ups asking users to

fill in a short survey about the website). This means that people may become increasingly

frustrated and annoyed with the idea of filling out questionnaires, especially from

unsolicited sources (Langridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2009). Accessing potential participants

from a trusted 'gatekeeper' and participant information sheet (which may be included in

an e-mail) that fully outlines why people should spend time on the questionnaire can

address this issue. Access to participants for the questionnaire was granted through a

'gatekeeper' in the organisation who forwarded employees an email with a link to the

questionnaire, the participant information and in addition a note from themselves

encouraging employees to read the information and consider participating.

The use of on line questionnaires may make it easier for participants to drop out compared

with the traditional paper and pencil method (Langridge & Hagger-Johnson, :W(9).

Researchers have to also consider if they will use the recorded data of incomplete

questionnaires or just exclude any incomplete questionnaires. To avoid the issue of

incomplete questionnaires and missing data in studies 2 and 3, the answering of all

questions were required by the on line questionnaire and in addition, any incomplete

questionnaires were discarded.

Gosling et aI's (2004) analysis suggested that data collected via the internet was as good

quality as those provided by the traditional paper and pencil methods; while on-line data

collection methods have their limitations, so do the traditional paper and pencil methods.

In addition, they suggested that on-line data collection methods also served to stimulate

the public's interest in psychology by involving a much broader range of society in

research, and not just the typical student based samples.

Conclusion

The use of a mixed method design seemed the most appropriate for the aims of this thesis.

While most of organisational citizenship behaviour research is conducted using

69

quantitative methods, the discrepancies found in the research suggested that there was a

risk that researchers were conceptualising OCBs in a manner that did not capture how

employees actually viewed OCBs. The use of a qualitative approach in the first study

allowed for an exploration ofOCBs as the employees' experienced it in their own context.

Finally, the findings of this qualitative approach allowed the development of two

quantitative studies that were built from the participants' view of citizenship behaviours;

thus hopefully allowing quantifiable results that reneet the experiences of individualist

and collectivist employees.

70

Chapter 4

Employees' conceptualisations and experiences of organizational citizenship behaviours

Introduction

As mentioned in the literary review chapter. organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

has traditionally been viewed as a virtuous construct with its motives pure. and its

outcomes for both the organisation and its employees. positive and advantageous.

However, as the research literature on OCB expanded, questions began to be raised with

regard to the constraints of its definition. OCBs had been defined as behaviours that an

employee could choose to perform and they were not constrained in their performance

such as with their job tasks, and these behaviours would not be openly rewarded and

ultimately would benefit the organisation (Organ. 1988). However. researchers started to

acknowledge that the lines between mandatory behaviours and discretionary behaviours

were blurry and ill defined (Morrison. 1994; Lam, Hui & Law. 1999). and too ambiguous

to identify the behaviours that fall in this category across employees. context and time

(Graham. 1991; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch. 1994). These questions over the

constraints of the OCB definition led Organ (1997) to revise his definition of OCB to:

"behaviours [that] do not support the technical core itself so much as they support the

broader organisational, social and psychological environment in which the technical core

must function" (p.73). This revision was designed to rectify some of the issues that arose

from his original definition. While this definition allows for behaviours that may be

considered as in-role and behaviours that may be rewarded to be included in the construct.

issues surrounding OCB are ever present.

71

Due to the dynamic nature of organisations, the classification of aCBs as extra-role or in­

role is constantly changing for employees and while Organ's 1997 definition of aCB

allows for these variations, there has been little thought as to how this impacts employees.

Morrison (1994) found that how an individual defines an activity as in-role or extra-role is

an important determinant of their behaviour. In cultural examinations of the perfi.mnance

ofaCB, a significant relationship between nationality and employees' defining aCBs as

in-role or extra-role has been found (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Blakely, Andrews &

Moorman, 2005), with employees with a collectivist orientation more likely to view aCBs

as in-role than individualistic orientated employees (Blakely et ai, 2005).

This suggests that a more appropriate approach to OCB research is to focus on how

employees and their managers conceptualise OCB and its performance. In addition, a

better understanding of how employees conceptualize OCB could also aid our

understanding of employees' motivations tor performing citizenship behaviours. The

conventional view of DCB theorizes that the motivation behind its performance is down to

the 'good wiJl' of the employee, who performs aCBs as part ofa social exchange with the

organisation (Organ, (990). While a majority of the research has assumed that aCB arises

out of the 'good will' of the employee, it has been acknowledged that some employees

may perform DCBs in order to make themselves 'look good' in the eyes of their co­

workers and supervisor (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Hui, 1993). Furthermore, researchers

have commented on the overlap between OCB and impression management, which has

been defined as a type of behaviour that attempts to manipulate others' perceptions of

them (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). While the early literature on impression management was

concerned with disingenuousness and devious uses of the behaviour, impression

management behaviours are not necessarily good or bad (Leary & Kowalski, 1990;

Schlenker & Weigold, 1992; Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995) and citizenship

behaviours may be used by individuals to achieve their impression management goals.

Fandt and Ferris (1990) believed that OCBs irrespective of their motives are likely to

improve organisational performance. However, Schnake (1991) countered this hy

72

suggesting that OCBs motivated purely by self interest would in the long term have

deleterious results for the organisation. While employees may usc citizenship behaviours

as a form of impression management, what may be more significant is how the citizenship

behaviour is implemented. Snell and Wong (2007) put forth the idea of 'pseudo-OCB', in

which an individual may use OCB for impression management purposes without

essentially engaging in citizenship behaviours.

Aim of Study

Much of OCB research has sought out antecedents to its performance or positive outcomes

resulting from its performance, while there has been little focus on how individuals

conceptualize OCB. This study does not aim to dismiss the previous literature on OCB,

but rather examines OCB away from the literature's preconceived motives and

consequences. The aim of this study is to investigate how employees perceive

organisational citizenship behaviours; and additionally, to identify their motives for its

performance and the outcomes they have experienced. With this in mind research

questions were developed to examine:

I. How do employees conceptualize organisational citizenship

behaviours? Specifically,

a. What are their motivations to performing OCBs

b. What outcomes have they experienced from performing OCBs

(including both positive and negative outcomes)

2. How does cultural orientation effect the conceptualization of OCB

and its motives and outcomes?

73

Method

Design and methodology

Since the aim of this study is to explore in detail employees' experiences and perception

of organisational citizenship behaviour, a qualitative design was viewed as the most

appropriate method to use. A Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss. 1967) approach was

used. which allowed for the development and refinement of relevant concepts, leading to

the emergence of theory from the data with the aim of developing a better understanding

of employees' conceptualisation of DeBs. The abbreviated version of Grounded Theory.

rather than the full version, was used. As mentioned in the previous methodology chapter.

the abbreviated version was used to avoid any order effects on the data collection and

analysis. However, the data collection and analysis did attempt to adhere to the main

principle by allowing the theory to emerge from the data rather than forcing the datu to tit

preconceived notions of OCBs.

Sample

Participants were recruited from two universities in the East Midlands region of the United

Kingdom through a letter sent to university departments that offer postgraduate courses.

As one of the aims was to identify if cultural orientation would affect the

conceptualisation of DeBs, participants were recruited from countries that had dominant

collectivist or individualistic orientations. According to Hofstede (1988) cultural

dimensions, the United Kingdom rates as a highly individualistic nation; therefore, British

participants were recruited to represent the individualistic orientation. To represent

collectivist countries Asian participants were recruited, as Asian countries rate highly as

collectivist countries (Hofstede, 1988). In addition, the two groups of participants were

required to have at least 1 year work experience in the United Kingdom or 1 year work

experience in an Asian country. Postgraduate university students on MBA programmes

74

were chosen as the Asian participants would have had relevant work experience within

collectivist countries and likely exposure to the performance of DeBs and in addition

would be proficient in English and therefore translation of interview transcripts would not

be an issue. Within the United Kingdom sample group, there were three male participants

and two female participants, while the Asian sample group had one male participant and

four female participants. who originated from Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and

Taiwan.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through a letter distributed by their departments which gave a

brief overview of the research and what would be involved if they chose to participate.

Participants were also made aware that they would be taking part in an interview that

would last approximately 50 minutes which would be recorded. They were informed that

the interview would be transcribed, and once completed, the recording of their interview

would be deleted and the transcript would be kept securely. In addition, each participant

was assigned a participant code. to ensure that any information provided would remain

anonymous and confidential. The participant code consisted of 3 characters, the first

refers to which sample the participant belongs to: H to refer to a United Kingdom

participant and A to refer to an Asian participant. The second character refers to the sex of

the participant (i.e. M for male and F for female) and the final number refers to the order

in which they were interviewed.

As mentioned previously in the methodology chapter. a semi structured interview was

used and the interview schedule was devised with Grounded Theory principles in mind,

which states that theories should be 'grounded' in the data coJlected rather than relying on

pre-existing theories, constructs or categories (Willig. 2004).

75

The primary aim of this study was to investigate employees' conceptualization of

citizenship behaviours; however, the term 'organisational citizenship behaviours' is not a

common one and is not well known outside of Occupational psychology and Business

Management research. Organ's original definition defined it as, 'individual behaviour that

is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized hy the formal reward system, and that

in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organisation' (19XX, p.4). It has

been argued that the definition should be independent of presumed motives or

consequences of the behaviour (Podsakoff et aI, 1993; Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 20(4).

While Organ's (1997) revised definition of citizenship behaviours does not include

motives or consequences it may be too unclear and ambiguous for participants unfamiliar

with OCB to identify behaviours that they view as OCBs. For these reasons, a definition

of citizenship behaviours was devised that allowed participants to understand what

citizenship behaviours are and which attempted to minimize the reference to in-role or

extra-role and the consequences. The definition given to participants was as follows:

The purpose of my research is to investigate employee performance

of what we call organisational citizenship behaviours. They have

been described as productive behaviours that go above and beyond

the call of duty for an employee. They are typically directed

towards their co-workers, but sometimes can be directed towards

the organisation itself. Employees who perform these behaviours

are usually seen as good citizens within the organisation who

perform at levels above what is formally required by the

organisation.

In the interview the participants were asked if they could give an example of a behaviour

that they believed would faJl into the OCB category, and if they had trouble identifying

behaviours, prompts were offered. After an example of the behaviour was identified,

participants were asked why it was performed and what the outcomes of its performance

76

were for them and the organisation. The line of questions was repeated until an hour was

up or they were no longer able to provide any more examples. The full interview schedule

can be found in Appendix I.

Data Analysis

Once the interviews were transcribed, transcripts from the United Kingdom samplc were

read several times and salient themes underlined. Open coding was used, creating codes

using terms either the participants used or ones that had been generated by the researcher.

This was continued until categories emerged from the data and quotations that iIlustratcd

the categories were collated. This process was then repeated for the transcripts from the

Asian sample. This was followed by constant comparison, allowing for categories to

develop, establishing the relationships between categories and identifying the properties of

each of the categories. Attention was given to compare and contrast the categories found

from the United Kingdom and Asian samples, highlighting when similar or distinct

categories emerged. Throughout this process theoretical memo writing was used to aid

with the emergence of theory from the data.

Results

The findings from the interviews will be presented in two sections based on the two

theories that emerged from the analysis of the transcripts:

1. The perception of oeBs as in-role or extra-role by employees and their

supervisors, will affect the motivation, performance and outcome of the

behaviours

77

2. OCB can be performed with impression managementl110tives to facilitate the

obtainment of employee goals

OCB as extra-role or in-role behaviours

While the traditional view of OCB presents itself as an extra-role behaviour, it appears

that employees' perceptions ofOCB are far less fixed, with employees viewing certain

OeBs as extra-role, while others are viewed as required behaviours. What seems more

important is how their perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role corresponds with their

perceptions of how their supervisor or the organisation perceives the OeB as in or extra

role.

When OCB is seen as extra-role by both manager and employee

When both the employee and their manager view OeBs as an extra-role behaviour, the

motivations and outcomes of OeB performance appear to be closest to the original

conceptualisation of citizenship behaviour. This was most commonly found within the

United Kingdom sample, where frequently the manager and employee viewed OeBs as

extra role behaviours which employees had a choice to perform and could not be forced to

perform the behaviour. In these situations, where there is the choice to perform these

behaviours, trust between the employee and their manager appears to be an important

factor in its performance.

· .. .fit] means that if I ask them to do something, if there is something that is outside the

norm, then, yeah they will generally do what was ask, as long as its not demanded of

them ... J wouldn 'I expect anyone 10 do anylhing J was nol prepared 10 do. And ill alllllot

prepared to ... work silly hours on a regular basis, I don 'I expecl others 10 ... ' (HM2)

78

When the behaviour is viewed as extra role by all involved, then employees have the

ability to say no to their supervisor if they are asked to perform a behaviour that is outside

their regular job duties.

' ... somelimes YOIl gel asked 10 do something Ihal you may think arc a hit trivial. Like

today I had to make a recycling box and I am pretty sure at tl1l' inten';ew stage there was

no mention (}f origami, which I got ill graced [sic/ into tot/ay. You call say 110, hut at the

end of the day the job will be given to someone else ... ' (/1 M3)

Employees in these situations have the ability to refuse to perform an OCB that is asked of

them and without fear of serious repercussions.

A: 'Do you think there would he any negative outcomes i(you said no?

HM3: 'If you did it enough times and you know. you get hranded as having II had {lftitl/de,

but I mean if I am genuinely busy I would say 110. It would get passed dOH'n to {llIotht'r. I

dOli 't think there would be any real repercussions. '

In addition, employees also have the ability to negotiate and discuss with supervisors

about any OCB behaviour that is asked of them.

'I(it is something quite small then I will do it, but !(it means laking me out of my jobfor a

number of days, a week or two, then it gets II bit more difficult because you have to say to

them "this isn'l in my joh andyo/l need 10 realise Ihe impact it is going to have on my

work if you wanl me to do something else' (HF2)

79

Participants also discussed the importance of acknowledging employees for performing

citizenship behaviours when they are perceived to be an extra-role behaviour.

'Let 'sface it, the organisation, as they are per:f'orming aho!'e and heyond, (,WI generally

benefit, 1 don't think there is a downside other than tfthey are not rewarding these

behaviours they can become disillusioned. disenchanted, disengaged. hut that's the kind of'

organisational challenges isn't it ... ' (HMl)

While financial rewards to employees who have excelled are not always possible.

participants have highlighted that acknowledgement in any form is important to employee

motivation.

'/ am afirm believer that ifsomething has gone "",rung then you mll/i'ont it and so on, hut

equally if something has been done right, ~vou did a goodjoh there', sometimes that ',\' all

it really needs. You are not always in the position to actually financially reward or reward

in any other way, but as long as you recognised the work that has bel'li put in, the e.fJort or

the results that '.I' come out, then hopefully that would motivate on to imprm'ed

performance, etc. ' (HM2)

'Someone who has done particular(v well and perhaps if what they have done has had an

impact on their home Itfe for a period of time, J think it '.I' sort of/illallcial, hut to say to

them, get yourself out for a meal with your wife or something and hring me the re('eipt, so

in financial terms it's not a lot of cash but it vef)' much a piece of recognitio/l that both

them and theirfami(v call see' (HMJ)

80

Two participants mentioned recognition of employees' performance through awards given

to members of staff that embody the organisational values and mission statement or whose

performance is believed to deserve recognition by their co-workers.

'/ think in terms o/recognition we have ... the shine award. The shine award ... il·S a hi-

month~v award to team members within the organisation who anybody/eels ... dcsen·e

recognition ... so it's not just raised and acknowledged. they were pre,\'ellted with their

award ... it 's a/ull award evening with dinner and professional presentl!r . . (lIFI)

It appears that those participants who viewed citizenship behaviours as extra-role

behaviours have clear job descriptions and understanding of whkh tasks fall into required

behaviours and which would be optional. When participants have this dear understanding,

they are free to decide what behaviours they would or would not like to perform.

' ... / can reject [sic] because by that time / know all the things we need to/i)//ow. thl!

policy. the procedure. it's not one (if my duries. why do I have to do that? ... Yeah because

we have a handbook of all the things you have to do for this job. iOhey did not write down

there. so / can reject [sh.} ... . (AF2)

When OCB is seen as extra-role by employees and in-role by their managers

All of the Asian participants gave examples in which they performed behaviours that they

viewed were extra-role citizenship behaviours, but they felt were perceived as in-role by

their managers or the organisation. In many cases the participant believed they or their co-

workers were asked to perform a behaviour that lay outside of their job specification.

81

'One of ourfi-iend~ basica/~v she is the depu~l' dean (~lthe academics and hem use she is

single, she is young, not married yet ... people alway.l· ask her to sit in //Ieeting.l· where she

is total(v unrelated to ... I think it's 1II?/'air}or her ... . (AF3)

Unlike the experience of many of the United Kingdom participants, participants in the

Asian sample feel they are unable to refuse to perform many of these tasks.

'I think even in our cultllre we just have Ish), we are told we havl:' to/ill/ow 0111'

supervisor's instnlctions. Just basica/~}'jllst [sic} do everything 0111' supel1'i.l'or .\'~r.\', not to

say no too often or you will have a had impression IsicJ' (AFI)

Often participants sited fear of repercussions as the reason for their inahility to say no to

supervisors or managers.

'Because my supervisor asked me to do so, a/course you can reject, bllt see what happen

when you reject ... The outcome, the teacher will say, the supervisor, my /Joss will .\'ay, he

might say, 'ok~' but you never know something in his mind [sic}. He can't do anything

but he can do something ill the future. If you want to Ro.for another joh and you need (/

reference letter, see what I am going to write on top. You worry about thaI, YOII worry so

you just stop, ),011 can't say no. It is one 0/ the olltcomes that might happen {(roll reiect'

(AF2)

Participants fear the outcomes that might arise if they did say no to a task given hya

supervisor; threats such as not being considered for promotions, rewards or even the threat

of being fired.

82

One Asian participant recounted that in her former job in a hospital. employees were made

to complete 30 hours of 'voluntary' work. She perceived this voluntary work as tasks that

lay outside her job description yet being forced to perform them left her feeling wronged

and unjustly treated by the organisation.

AF2: ' ... YOIl arefhrcing me to do that, it is IInfair, it is not one oim)' dllties. YOIl do ajoh

in a health organisation, doesn't mean you hare to enjoy /sic}. ,

A: 'Do you think you Ylvuld have heen more willing O/' happy to do if iOt was not/iJl'ced

'volunteering '?

AF2: 'I ~muld be more happy [sic} and el?ioy it'

While participants may feel unfairly treated by feeling forced to perform behaviours they

view are extra-role. four of participants dealt with this through various techniques. Three

of the Asian participants. when discussing the ability to say no to supervisors. commented

on the use of avoidance to deal with these situations without confronting their supervisor.

'No, they can work around it, they can avoid it, do something that makes them do thejoh,

hut to say no infront of them, no' (AMI)

' ... sometimes you can reject a little hit, just reject, just say 'I think allother person call

take thisjoh', you can't scry 'no 1 am busy, 1 can't do this. '(AF2)

Other participants appear to positively frame the situation in a way that reduces the

perception of being unfairly treated.

83

' ... ilwe have the idea that wasn't part of our job or / sic! l1'i' jusl help as a .li/I'our, we pilI

them in a later pile priority. We will still do it hut we will have a dillerem allillide. ' (.4FI)

AMI: '[in aJ previous institution, like 1 said. 1 was actual~v a research officer hilI they, hilt

my superior said, asked me to do treasury. It's like vel)" 1 don't really like holdin?, /110m:\,

and stuff like that, so it was like a burden to me 1 don't real(v enjoy at aff. '

A: 'Especially with Indonesia, there are so many notes to hold!'

AMI: '1 know, since 1 was in school, 1 also rejected the treasury position, 1 don't like it.

But sometimes your worse [sic}. yeah, but it's a good. 1 mean, as (1n oulcome 1 gel a IJl-'W

experience, because I don't have any experience belore that hilt its something you ho\'e to

do if your supervisor strys so'

Asian participants also recounted examples in which they have or know of friends and co­

workers who have performed personal favours for their supervisors that lie outside of their

prescribed job roles. The performance of personal favours may be used as a means of

ensuring a positive relationship with their supervisor and attempting to prevent any future

negative outcomes.

'My friends [siL) working in financial sector, he just help with his supen'isors personal

things. like doing something like booking the/light ticketfor her ... Or even when his

supervisor. his supen·isor is a lady, her /child! is getting baptised, myfrimd helped her

with designing the card, the invitation card. (AF 1)

A lack of clarity of ones' job duties can affect the performance of OeBs, as participants

may feel the behaviour is an extra-role behaviour: however job ambiguity results in

84

participants feeling unsure of where it lies and therefore feel they may be obligated to

perform the behaviour.

'II is nol really clear cuI what your duties are ... 11 is rea/~l' difficuillhing. I have to say

sometimes were not very conscious of what we are doi,,!!., like this is"ot part of our joh or

this is part of our job. We jusl do el'erylhi,,!!.; we did l10t hm'e a l'efY clear idea (!f o/lrjoh. '

(AFl)

When OeB is seen as in-role by both employee and supervisor

Some citizenship behaviours that are traditionally seen as extra-role behaviours were seen

as required in-role behaviours by some participants. In these cases the participants felt that

these behaviours were required behaviours and therefore felt obligated to perform these

behaviours out of a sense of duty.

'The main reason is, we [are] helping ourfriend~, so. the olher side! think, !Ihink iI's

someThing we should do with our co-workers' (AMI)

In these situations, an understanding of one's job scope also plays a key role in the

performance of OCB behaviours.

' ... /ike outside of my job scope, no, calise! don 'f have a set joh scope. Yeah, .1'0 we are just

asked fa do whatever and anything that is related to work. ' (AF4)

85

When DCBs are viewed as required behaviours of the employees, it is unlikely they will

get any acknowledgement or reward for its performance.

'For positive outcomes, I think we only get credit because we (Ire working on something

that you are supposed to do, I don't think so . . (A MI)

Overlap between citizenship behaviours and impression management

Impression management is a technique by which employees attempt to manipulate other

people's perceptions of themselves. The literature on impression management views it as

neither good nor bad and the responses of the participants reflect that. It appears that there

is an overlap between OCB and impression management behaviours, as participants use

the performance of DCBs to influence how others view them.

A: 'so your motivation is just helping out. anything else motivates YOIl to do it'! .

HF2: 'Mainly just helping oul, I suppose it could look good on your perfimnance review ..

A: Do you think that nwtivates you sometimes? If I do this it will reflect well Oil mi' and J

may get a good appraisal.

HF2: 'Yes, I think so, il does, I am afraid. '

For some participants, it appears that the performance of DCBs as a form of impression

management becomes crucial for progression in their career due to the ways their

organisation measures performance.

86

'So there is there piece abuut [sic}. and alsu fhe part about people who are heffer (If

appearing to peifonning beller than others, particularly ({ they can 'f he any genuinc

metrics attached fo fhe roles they have. So, il1 other words, yes [ hal'c seen main' peoplc

that can talk a good game. [ have seen many people that just put their head dmm {lnd get

on with it. ' (HMI)

One participant discussed that in his current organisation he had no experience of

impression management behaviours; one reason he gave for this was the objective

measures of performance used in the organisation.

'[ don 'f think [ would, cause [ don 'f fhink if necessarily make any diffcrence, ifS \'l'ry /IIuch

driven by your results, so [ think that would be rather than any kind (}f superficial (lets to

be seen going out of your way. Obviously, it '.I' not a bad thing bur [ fhink on ifs own it

wOllldn 't get you anywhere' (HM3)

However. another participant recounted that in her workplace. subjective measures of

performance were used. and that employees do not necessarily have a chance to work one

on one with those who make these subjective judgements of their performance.

'The firm does say it is a lot to do with perception, after all you are consultallts, .vouneed

to come off that way. Because thaI is how YOII are graded as well, YOII don't gef 10 work

with everyone, when they, at the end of the year when they rank el'ery cOllsultant, it i.l·

based Oil their perceptions of you. If you have never 'worked with them they don't know

whal their work style is like, but you do stuff where the right people see YOII doing stuff;

although. that is definite~y going to help you stand out...lfthey 're are smarl ahout il and

they get the right people looking al them, doing il at the righllimes, rather Ihall doing il

87

anytime and just hopinR someone will see Ihem. BUI !(1 were to do it / w()u/d.f/Ild so//u'o//£'

who is inj7uentialand really show illo Ihem, that / Clln do all these things .... (AF4)

In these cases impression management is used to display an employee's ability that might

not normally be observed by others. The size of the team or department you work in seems

to also have an impact on the performance of impression management.

'/ have 10 be honest, because qf my own personal experience, I operate in a relatil'e/\,

sl1wl/leam initially. and Iherefore il was nol obl'ious that was 11lIppellill!{. HO\1'l'I'er ill a

larRer team. in a head office environment the stake holders you collie in/o contact with,

aren't necessari(v people you meet from one month to the next blltthey ClIII hal'e quill' all

influence on what happens to you and what happens to your plans. So therefore .\"('.1', il

becomes more important to know what bUUOIls to press with those people, if you 11'(/111

whal you are proposing to go through and if you want to be weI/thought 0/1 glless. '

(HMI)

The size of a team an employee works in also seems to affect how impression

management is perceived, as co-workers feel better able to distinguish between genuine

performance of OeBs and false performances.

'/ think it '.I' a personality thing, wilh these people, / think that is why it doesn't real(v etfect

anythinR badly because you are a small Rroup and you are around each other alllhe lime

and you know that is just part of their character. ralher than. yeah you know when

someone is fakely f sic J trying to impress .. .It is very' easy to see Ihrough Ihat SOI'l ol

nonsense. '(HM3)

88

However. while participants gave examples of impression management where genuine

OeBs were performed. participants have also given examples in which they attempt to

enhance their image by pretending to perform citizenship hehaviours.

'The most obvious thing is that you just try to stay as late. yeah late. So who lean's the

latest is considered the most hard workinR one. el'ell tl!ouXh we are just stayillX doillX

nothing sometimes. ' (AF 1)

' ... my boss is Chinese educated, so she judges how much work you 1101'(' hy how early you

leave. ({you leave early the next day she will just pile Oil more for work ./(1/' you, so to

avoid that, to avoid getting nwre work, I stay hack a little bit longer than normal, like

later than normal, so I don't get more Ivork...just pretend to look bu,IY. '(AF4)

Impression management can have a positive effect when the behaviour performed is a

genuine citizenship behaviour: however. when the behaviour is perceived to he

disingenuous it can have negative effects for co-workers and the organisation.

'Direct experience, the experience "YJuld be my line manager; his inteqJersolll.llskil/s art!

low down On the list. What he does is e-mail.l· and a number of them are timed in at lIille

thirty in the evening. I have actual/y hadfive 10 midnight and twenty past olle ill the

morning. Alld there not just to me, these are the e-mails are copied around the

organisation, they are on, cc-ed everywhere and particularly olles that are c('-ed to senior

management, they are timed late in the evening or alternatively incredibly ellr!.v in the

morning. And part of you questions whether they are literari!.v doinx it at That time to be

seen, part of you queries whether or not they haven't got the time to do thejoh in the

daytime and then of course you question the work /ife balance ... My colleagues that/ hm'e

spoken to don't think so, we have an incredibly low opinion that kind of action hecause

89

it's a contrived action ... if anything it de-motivates or that's heen my experil'llcc. My tCl/1II

have been very much de-motivated hy seeing someone else do that. ' (11M2)

' ... she will write down the supervisors schedule on her table and the supervisor in she is

in, ffthe supervisor is Ollt she is out ... She matches the supervisor.l· time, she c/Ol'S this kind

of thing for tl1V years ... So the supervisor says she is rea/~\', rea/~v study hard /sie/. We

know everything but we can't tell our supervisor, they will think we are ~I'illg ... Wejllst

dislike her, we will just gossip ahout her in the o/JicI! ... no olle wallts to work I\'itll her. '

(AF2)

Almost all of the participants had experiences of impression management and it appear!-.

that the outcomes from the performance of these behaviours are dependent on how they

perceive the behaviours, When the behaviour is viewed to be false it can result in a de­

motivated and conflict oriented work environment. However. when an employee perceives

the behaviour to be authentic. it can have positive outcomes.

'For that case I don't want because il is likefake, but if the people really study hard, ./In'

example, another office and they only do the statistics, it's rcally hard. Comc at ni~ht, they

are leaving at /0, I said 'woah', they never take rest, I will say 'wow they are rea/~v

good'. When sometimes I want to be a lazy person, i/'Jjust go there I willjustji.'el 'yes I

need to work more '. Because I know they are really studying hard. not just fake ... ' (AF:!)

.... we have a guy, a totally different guy, his working day starts at six thirty because he

spent an al1fullot of time in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, I think, and some time ill

South Africa. The working practice out there was start work vel)' early in the 11l0rnillX till

something like lunchtime. He still works. starts work six thirty in thl' morninx, there is 110

one else in till eight thirty. And of course he will raise queries at seven 0 'dock in the

90

mornillg alld so on bye-mail so you call respolld to them as SOOIl liS you cOllie ill, hut he

also leaves atfour thirty which is in his contracted hours. So you accept that is his \l'lIy ()f'

workillg. The other guy who is the line mll1Ulger, who is doin!!. these Illte night e-mails, hi.\

queries get a totally different response from those who receive thelll. Yes, de-motivates,

Steve, on the other hand, who is the early morning guy, tends to get evcryolle (III his sic/e

alld everyone will help him out. But its d!fferent personalities as wel/, it '.I' no/jus//he lime

but also the person you are dealing with. ' (H M2)

Discussion

It has been argued that much of the literature on DeB has been guided by four hasic

assumptions: DeBs arise from non self-serving motives; DCBs facilitate effective

functioning; DeBs ultimately benefit employees (Solino et ai, 2(X)4); and OeBs are extra­

role behaviours. However, this study indicates that these traditional views may not be

reflected in employee conceptualisations. Le Pine. Erez and Johnson (2002) suggested

that research should move its focus away from identifying antecedents and outcomes and

instead focus on a greater understanding of the OCB construct. This is supported by the

recent attention given to the definition of DeB in regards to it being an in-role or extra

role behaviour. In this debate some researchers have proposed to remove 'extra-role'

from the definition (Organ, 1997), while other researchers have maintained the importance

of including the qualifier, insisting that it is important for the constructs validity (Van

Dyne, Cummings & Park, 1995). Regardless of the choice between including or excluding

the extra role qualifier, how an employee perceives a citizenship behaviour as in- or extra­

role is important to understanding their motivation to perform the behaviour (Morrision.

1994; Kwantes, Karam. Kuo & Towson, 2008).

In this study. many of the participants struggled to give examples of behaviours that they

thought would fall into the OCB category and this may be in part due to the fluctuating

nature of citizenship behaviours as in-role or extra-role behaviours. Morrison (1994)

argued that the boundary between in-role and extra-role behaviours are otien hazy and

91

therefore subject to multiple interpretations. Making reference to the research of role

making (Graen, 1976) and social information processing (Salancik & Pfeffer. 197H),

Morrison (1994) emphasised that jobs were socially constructed rather than defined

objectively. Therefore, even in similar work contexts the conceptualisation of OCBs can

vary across employees and between subordinates and their supervisors. In addition,

Morison (1994) advocated understanding how an employee deti ned their job

responsibilities if researchers wanted to understand the motivational hasis hehind OCB

performance. The responses of the participants emphasised that citizenship behaviours can

be viewed as both required and discretionary behaviours and these differences in

perceptions varied across employees and supervisors. With this in mind it is important to

acknowledge that OCBs could be viewed as in-role or extra-role behaviours, as it plays an

important role in explaining and predicting employees' OCB performance (Morrison,

1994; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Tepper, Lockhart & Hoobler, 200 I; Van Dyne & Butler

Ellis, 2004, Kamdar, McAllister & Turban, 2006). Increasing evidence illustrates that

employees are more likely to perform citizen!;hip behaviours when it is viewed as an in

role behaviour rather than as a discretionary behaviour (Morrison, 1994; Tepper & Taylor,

2003; Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler & Purcell, 2004; Kamdar et aI, 2006). Morrison (1994)

believed that many employees who engage in OCB performance do so because they

believe the behaviour is in-role and generally employees will attempt to perform all the

tasks they view as defined in their job role (Kamdar et aI, 2006). The results of these

studies and the findings of this study highlight that our understanding of OCB

performance may be enhanced if we recognise the differences in pcrcepti(ms employees

and their managers may have of citizenship behaviours as required or discretionary

behaviours.

As previously mentioned, when both the employee and the supervisor perceive the

behaviour to be extra-role, the antecedents and outcomes of the performance of OCB

appear to be as described in the original conceptualization of citizenship behaviour. All of

the participants from the United Kingdom and one participant from the Asian sample were

92

able to give an example of when both the employee and supervisor viewed an OCB as

extra-role. For these participants. the performance of citizenship behaviour was extra-role

where they could chose to perform or refuse to perform without the fear of repercussions.

If a supervisor had asked them to perform the behaviour. they felt ahle to say no to thelll

or negotiate with the supervisor if they felt they did not want to perform the hehaviour.

Previous research has found that when employees define DCBs as discretionary they

engage in DCBs more when they perceive they are being treated fairly and perform less

when procedural justice is low (Tepper et al. 2DDI: Kamdar et al. 2(X)6). Tepper et al

(200 I) went on to argue that the etIccts of fair supervisor treatment on DCB performance

were strongest when OCBs were perceived to be extra-role. Given that. in these situations

perceptions of justice, trust and fair treatment by supervisors would be an important

contributing factor in OCB performance, which was supported by the responses of the

participants in the United Kingdom sample. Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) remarked that an

organisation was expected to pay a 'fair day's wage' in exchange for an employee's 'fair

day's work'; however. over time if an employee is consistently treated fairly the economic

exchange between the employee and organisation will tend to shift to a social exchange

relationship (Organ, 1990; Graham & Organ, 1993; Cropanzano & Mitchell. 20(5).

According to the norm of reciprocity employees who are receiving favourable treatment

may often feel obligated to reciprocate and 'repay' their fair treatment (Gouldner. 1960;

Blau, 1964). Organ (1988) believed that employees, engaged in a social exchange with

their organisation. would reciprocate through the performance of citizenship behaviours

without worrying if they would be directly compensated. By contrast. if the employee felt

they were being treated unfairly. they would withdraw from the relationship and may

narrow their actions to only involve the official tasks as dictated on the job description

(Tepper et ai, 2001: Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002; Tepper & Taylor. 2003; Blakely et al.

2005).

93

Participants in the United Kingdom sample reported either being rewarded or rewarding

the performance of extra-role behaviour. Three of the participants who had a supervisory

role indicated the importance of acknowledging employees for going beyond the call of

duty to ensure they continued to motivate their subordinates thus supporting previous

findings that suggest that managers are aware of the benelits of OCB performance and

therefore informally reward its performance (Allen & Rush, 1998; Hui, Lam & Law,

2000). In addition, Podsakoff et al (1993) proposed that managers may deliberately reward

employees who engage in high levels of OCBs as an act of reciprocation and a means of

inciting oeB performance in other employees. Responses from the interviews illustrated

that rewards for the performance of OeBs were often not linancial in nature. hut rather in

the form of acknowledgment and praise, which appears to reinforce the desire for

employees to be 'good soldiers' and also reinforces the idea that the organisation treats

their employees fairly. It also may be that the United Kingdom organisations perceive

these OeBs as extra-role behaviours which they believe are necessary for effective

performance and therefore feel it is essential to encourage their employees to perform

these behaviours. The responses from the United Kingdom participants seem to support

the idea that employees with an individualistic orientation are more willing to perform

OCBs when they perceive they are being treated fairly (Organ, 1990). Researchers have

argued that individualistic employees are more sensitive to the way the organisation treats

and rewards them (Erdogan & Liden, 2006) as individualists are self-orientated and are

preoccupied with their own rights (Earley & Gibson. 1998). For individualistic employees,

OeBs are performed as a social exchange when they perceive they are being treated fairly.

They are unlikely to remain in relationships when their own needs are not met (Erdogan &

Liden, 2(06), which adds support to the idea of supervisors acknowledging and praising

OCB performance. Many of the participants in the United Kingdom sample cited social

exchange and goodwill as reasons why they performed citizenship behaviour. While in the

Asian sample, none of the participants gave examples in which they were rewarded or

praised for their performance of citizenship behaviours, suggesting that these behaviours

may be viewed as in-role behaviours which an employee is required to perform.

94

Differences between collectivist and individualistic orientated employees' performance of

organisational citizenship behaviour have been found in past research, with collcl:tivist

employees being more likely to perform OCBs (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). While

individualistic employees may perform OCBs as a form of reciprocating fair treatment,

collectivists are believed to have a different set of motivations behind their performance.

Individuals with a collectivist orientation identify themselves as a member of a group and

will prioritize the goals of the group over their own personal goals <Triandis. 19(5). For

collectivist employees the relationship between organisational commitment or perceptions

of fairness and aCB is weaker, as it is believed that collectivists perform OCBs out of a

sense of obligation to their in-group and organisation (Moorman & Blakely, 1995;

Francesco & Chen, 2004). Blakely et al (2005) found that Chinese employees were more

likely than Canadian employees to view acBs as in-role behaviours and that they would

perform them without the typical antecedents associated with aCB performance. It was

suggested that this was due to the Chinese employee's collectivist orientation, that

collectivistic employees were likely to view the performance of OCBs as part of their duty

to ensure the goals of their in-group. Collectivists place a premium on maintaining

harmonious relationships and loyalty to their in-group, and it is for this reason that it is

believed that collectivist employees have a higher threshold to injustice than

individualistic employees (Ergodan & Liden, 2006). While individualistic employees may

reduce their performance of OCBs or withdraw from the social exchange if they percei ve

they are being treated unfairly, it is believed that collectivists will continue to maintain the

relationship, even if it is no longer beneficial to the employee (Markus & Kitayama,

1991). Past research has supported the view that collectivists perform OCBs, which they

view as in-role behaviours due to a sense of loyalty and obligation to their in -group which

in tum results in collectivist employees having a higher threshold to injustice. Some

researchers have even questioned if acBs would exist for collectivist employees as it is

believed that they would perceive OCBs as in-role behaviours that they were obligated to

perform to advance the goals of the organisation and maintain harmonious relations

(Moorman & Blakely, 1995). With this in mind, collectivists may not have the same

motivation to perform aCBs as individualistic employees who view them as extra-role

95

behaviours. However, while some Asian participants did perceive some OCBs to be a

requirement of the job, they were able to provide examples in which they perceived an

OCB to be extra-role. In these situations they felt that while they perceived the behaviour

to be extra-role, they felt that the supervisor perceived them to be in-role and often cited

feeling pressure to perform these OCBs. The responses of the participants brings us to

question whether collectivist employees perform OCBs out of a sense of duty and if they

do have a higher threshold for injustice or rather do they have a greater fear of the

repercussions for actively seeking to address the imbalance.

As previously mentioned, the traditional definition of citizenship behaviours defines it as a

discretionary behaviour that an employee is free to perform or not perform it without fear

of the repercussions. Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2007) disputed this view and presented the idea

of compulsory citizenship behaviours (CCB) in which employees may be pressurised by

supervisors or co-workers to perform citizenship behaviours. In his study (2007) he found

that two thirds of participants had reported that CCBs were common place in their work

environment and that refusing to perform these tasks was unacceptable. The sample for

this study was taken from teachers from 13 Israeli schools and according to Hofstede

(1985) Israel is an individualistic culture. No studies as of yet have sought to examine

cultural differences in CCB performance, but from the responses of the participants in this

study it appears to be more prevalent in collectivist cultures. Asian participants reported

being unable to say no to a supervisor's request even if they felt the behaviour was outside

their prescribed job roles. They feared that by refusing to perform citizenship behaviours

they would be subjected to a number of negative outcomes, such as being seen as not a

team player, not being considered for promotions or rewards and even feared for their job.

Whether these threats would have been carried out or not, the fear of repercussions

appears to have altered their performance of OCBs. This counters the view that collectivist

employers have higher thresholds for justice, due to their devotion to their in-groups;

rather they may have a greater fear of repercussions for trying to redress the balance than

indi vidualistic employees.

96

Researchers investigating the effects of perceptions of justice on OCB performunce huve

always assumed that withholding the performance of citizenship behaviours is effortless

for employees (Kamdar et al. 2006). Kamdar et al (2006) highlighted that it is extremely

difficult for employees to 'work to rule'. as the norms of many work groups assumc a

certain basic level of OCB performance. Withdrawing from the performunce of

citizenship behaviours is especially difficult if the employee feels personally responsihle

for the performance of these behaviours. whether by personal choice or the expcctations of

co-workers. Individualistic employees prefer to use confrontational pnx;edurcs when they

perceive unfair treatment. while collectivists tend to use harmony inducing procedures to

deal with the perceptions of unfairness (Leung, Au. Fernadez-Dols & Iwawaki. IYY2).

Rather than retaliate to unfair treatment and withdraw the performance of OCBs,

collectivists tend to resort to soft tactics due to the importance placed on harmonious

relationships (Erdogan & Liden. 2006). Erdogan and Liden (2006) found collectivistic

employees tended to use unassertive and covert means such as ingratiation. It has been

found that the use of ingratiation is culturally specific, with it being common practice in

places sueh as India (Pandey, 1981). Participant responses supported the view that

collectivists used covert tactics to respond to unfair treatment through the use of

avoidance, positive framing and ingratiation. Often participants stated that they would

attempt to avoid the work or give the work a lower priority, but to say no to their

supervisor was unacceptable. Many of the Asian participants cited doing personal favours

for their supervisor or used other supervisor focused behaviour as a means of ingratiating

themselves to their supervisor. not with career advancement aims but rather attempting to

prevent any future unfair treatment. While the performance of personal favours may

prevent punishment and other negative outcomes, it is often at the expense of

organisational performance (Wortman & Linsenmier, 1977). In addition, Erdogan and

Liden (2006) highlighted that the use of these covert tactics could create a situation in

which managers were unaware of unfair treatment. allowing the performance of CCBs to

continue. This therefore would create a situation where an organisation could have a high

level of OCB performance, but with negative outcomes for the employees und the

organisation.

97

While the use of impression management techniques was common within the collectivist

sample, it was also common place amongst the United Kingdom sample. Impression

management describes behaviours used by an actor to create or maintain an image held hy

a target audience (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997). Recently, researchers have commented on

the overlap between DCB and impression management behaviours (Fandt & Ferris, 1990;

Eastman, 1994; Ferris, Judge, Rowland & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Bolino, 1999; Rioux &

Penner, 200 I). Responses from participants illustrate that employees arc aware that the

performance of citizenship behaviours can make them 'look good' in the eyes of their

supervisors and co-workers. Their responses also highlight that there arc certain factors

that appear to foster or suppress the performance of impression management behaviours.

Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor and Judge (1995) claimed that self-serving DCBs would be used in

situations in which career advancement decisions were subjective and subject to the

personal biases of the decision makers. In addition, Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson and

Bratton (2004) believed that if an employee perceives their performance is measured using

objective measures, it is unlikely that impression management will be used. These views

were supported by the responses of the participants who gave examples in which

impression management tactics were not used when objective measures of performance

were in place and examples in which impression management was used when evaluations

were influenced by subjective measures. In these situations it appears that employees are

aware of the influence that OCBs can have on subjective evaluations, especially in

situations in which they may not have the opportunity to otherwise display their abilities.

The performance of citizenship behaviours can allow employees the opportunity to display

their talents and abilities, allowing them to appear more competent to their supervisors and

other senior staff members (Stevens, 1997). Examples were given by a participant in

which she was evaluated on her performance by staff members she did not often have an

opportunity to work with; she stated the importance of showing her abilities when these

staff members could observe them. The situation in her organisation ti.)stered the use of

impression management, which supports the findings of Barsness, Diekmann, and Seidel

(2005) who found that employees who worked remotely from their supervisors were more

98

likely to engage in higher levels of impression management behaviours compared to

employees who worked more centrally.

Research into the outcomes of impression management has often focused on the outcome

for the actor performing the behaviours or the effects of impression management

performance on supervisor's performance ratings of the actor. What is lacking in the area

is research examining the effects of impression management performance on co-workers

who are not the target of the behaviours but rather bystanders who witness the

performance. When behaviours are seen as driven purely by self-serving motives it is

likely that it will result in negative outcomes (Jones & Pittman, 19H2). Tepper, Duffy,

Hoobler and Ensley (2004) suggested that co-workers will scorn employees whose

behaviour is seen to be performed entirely for impression management purposes. The

results of this study seem to support this view with participants expressing contempt for

co-workers who they believe are performing behaviours for impression management

purposes. Examples given by participants demonstrated the negative outcomes that can

occur when co-worker's OeB like behaviours are believed to be disingenuolls, slIch as de­

motivating team members and hostility towards the co-worker. It does appear that

employees' perceptions influence the outcomes of these behaviours because when

participants perceived a co-workers performance of OeBs as genuine, co-workers are

motivated to follow their example and positive outcomes for the employees and the

organisation can emerge.

There has been much debate over whether OeBs motivated by self interest are beneficial

or detrimental to an organisation's performance. With PodsakofT et al (1993) suggesting:

"Does it really matter why an employee comes to work extra early or stays extra late? As

long as the employee is really working, it should enhance the effectiveness of the

organisation" (p.33). However, Snell and Wong (2007) argued that there are occasions

where an employee may pretend to perform OeBs (termed pseudo-~eBs) in order to be

seen as a good citizen without expending the full amount of time and energy needed to

99

perform the genuine behaviour. In the current study, two participants gave examples of

staying late in their office to satisfy their supervisors and look like good employees, while

not actually engaging in work. The performance of pseudo-OCBs could be detrimental to

organisational performance, as they do not contribute to organisational effectiveness and if

co-workers are aware of these behaviours, could result in discordant teams. It is apparent

that managers need to be aware of the distinction between impression management tactics

which implement actual citizenship behaviours and those that just imitate these

behaviours.

While the results of this study have demonstrated participants' everyday experiences with

organisational citizenship behaviours, we must be aware of the limitations of I.jualitative

methods. Firstly, only a small sample size was used; five British participants and five

Asian participants. This, coupled with the difficulty of replicability of qualitative methods,

means that the results cannot be generalised to other people or settings. However, with the

use of mixed methods, the next two quantitative studies will build on these findings. with

the subsequent results being more generalisable. In addition. while a grounded theory

approach was taken. which emphasises allowing theory to emerge from the data rather

than be influenced by preconceived notions, there is still a risk with qualitative methods

that the results were influenced by the researcher's personal biases. However, all attempts

were made to allow the participants to express their personal experiences rather than

reflecting the interviewer's personal experiences.

The results of this study supported some findings from past citizenship behaviour research

but also countered some of the traditional assumptions made of DCB performance. What

this study has illustrated is that employees' performance of organisational citizenship

behaviours is more complex than previously thought. It can have positive. as well as

negative outcomes, performed out of good will. as well as for self-serving reasons, and it

may be considered going beyond the call of duty. as well as being considered part of an

employee's prescribed job roles. The findings of this study emphasises not the importance

100

of a definition that is able to categorise OCBs across contex ts, hut rather the importance of

acknowledging employees' and supervisors' perceptions of citizenship behaviours. It is

these individual perceptions of citizenship behaviours that intluence an cmploycc's

motivations, performance and outcomes. What also became apparent is some studics usc

of quantitative methods had not allowed the full picture of OCB performance to become

visible, especially in the case of collectivist employees performance of citizenship

behaviours. While this study did not take individual measures ufparticipants' orientation

as individualist or collectivistic employees, it did sample participants from countries that

are predominately collectivist or individualist. While Hui and Triandis (1986) highlighted

that cultures which are labelled as individualistic or collectivist arc simply cultures in

which the majority of the individuals have an individualist or collectivist orientation, we

can assume that the participants all worked in countries in which collectivist or

individualist orientations were dominant. As previously mentioned in the chapter on

culture, Kwantes et al (2008) illustrated the dangers of spurious conclusions that can arise

with inappropriate cross levels of analysis. For that reason, the next studies willmcasurc

individualism and collectivism to confirm that differences in culture that were found are

true as an individual difference. Past studies illustrated employees from collectivist

cultures as performing OCBs out of a sense of loyalty and obligation, leading researchers

to questions if these behaviours could be considered OCBs or rather, part of their

prescribed job roles (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). However from the responses of

participants from the Asian samples it appears that the performance of citizenship

behaviours often arise out of fear of negative outcomes if they are not performed or as a

function of impression management tactics. A better understanding of the performance of

citizenship behaviour in both individualistic and collectivist employees is needed,

especially with the free flow of labour and cultural changes occurring in many countries.

In addition this study also highlights that OCB performance is intertwined with impression

management performance. However, past research has often focused on the outcomes for

the actors themselves or their target, and limited research has been done examining the

effect on the audience who witness the performance of impression management

behaviours. To better understand OCBs, we need to understand how employees perceive

101

co-workers' performance of citizenship behaviours and outcomes that may arise from

these different perceptions.

102

Chapter 5

Employees' perceptions of other 'good soldiers' and 'good actors'

Introduction

When discussing the qualities that a good soldier should have in the armed forces,

qualities such as integrity, motivation. dedication. a strong work ethic and a sense of

service before self. are often listed. While these qualities serve well in the military, they

also serve well in an organisation, and that is presumably why Bateman and Organ ( 1983)

coined the term to describe employees who engage in high levels ofOCBs. Research has

found that 'good soldiers' who perform organisational citizenship behaviours arc valued

by the organisations they work for. and have been traditionally thought to perform these

behaviours because of dispositional factors or a sense of obligation to the organisation

(Bolino. 1999). Due to the value that many organisations place on OCB performance,

'good soldiers' who engage in DeBs are often rewarded for their performance and arc

likely to be perceived favourably by others (Fandt & Ferris. 1990; Eastman. 1994; Ferris.

Judge. Rowland & Fitzgibbons. 1994). The traditional view of DCBs is one of selfless acts

performed for the benefit of co-workers or the organisation (Bateman & Organ. 1983).

However. others suggest OCBs can be performed for self-serving motives (Bolino. 1999.

Rioux & Penner. 2(01). Employees themselves are aware that the performance of oeBs

can make them 'look good' in the eyes of their supervisors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Hui.

1993). This was also supported by the responses from the participants in Study I. as for

example. a female British participant stated that helping behaviours could also look good

on her performance review. Due to the benefits that can be gained from the performance

of OCBs. employees can perform these for self-serving motives. making these OeBs more

akin to impression management tactics. However. further research into the negative effects

of OeBs or their overlap with impression management tactics and the outcomes this can

103

have. have largely been overlooked and this is reflected with the overly positive terms

associated with OCBs. such as altruism. civic virtue. courtesy. conscientiousness and

sportsmanship (Banki. 2010).

Impression management (1M) is "a conscious or unconscious attempt to control images

projected in real or imagined social interactions" (Schlenker. 1980. p. 6). Rioux and

Penner (200 I) identified that the desire to gain rewards and avoid looking had were

motivations behind impression management performance. Impression managemcnt can he

used to get a job. achieve career success. influence supervisors' evaluations or even just

appear to be a good citizen in the organisation. These descriptions of impression

management make it seem like the antithesis of OCBs and. unl ikely that an employee or

researcher would confuse them. For example. Jim asks his supervisor if he would like him

to stay late in the office to help finish this month's accounts. Jim could be just a 'good

soldier' who wants to ensure their department is efficient and meets all their deadlines.

However, Jim could be a 'good actor' who is assisting his supervisor because he knows

staff appraisals are coming up and wants to ensure his supervisor noticcs his hard work.

This example illustrates the overlap between citizenship behaviours and impression

management techniques (Fandt & Ferris. 1990; Eastman. 1994; Ferris et al. 1994; Bolino.

1999; Rioux & Penner. 200 I) and that the performance of OCBs can be based on altruistic

or instrumental motives (Eastman. 1994). Although organisational citizenship behaviours

and impression management are conceptually distinct constructs. the overlap between

them is also illustrated in the items used to measure the constructs. Many items included

in measures of impression management are rather similar to items that measure citizenship

behaviours, leading Bolino and Turnley (1999) to conclude that the major difference

between the two constructs is the motivation behind the behaviour. Without the motives

behind citizenship behaviours being revealed it can lead researchers to mistakenly code

impression management behaviours as citizenship behaviours (Schnake, 1991).

However, if an employee genuinely completed the task for his or her supervisor, does his

or her motivation really matter? There has been much debate over whether OeBs

104

motivated by self interest are beneficial or detrimental to an organisation's pcrformance.

"Does it really matter why an employee comes to work extra carly or stays extra late? As

long as the employee is really working, it should enhance the cffectiveness of the

organisation" (Podsakoffet al. 1993, p.33). However, Snell and Wong (2007) arguc that

there are occasions where an employee may pretend to perform OCBs (tcrmed Pscuoo­

OCBs) in order to be seen as a good citizen without expending thc full amount of time ano

energy required to perform the genuine behaviour. Some evidence of this emerged in

Study I. Here, two participants gave examples of staying late in their office to satisfy their

supervisor and look like good employees, while not actually engaging in work. The

performance of pseudo-OeBs could be detrimental to organisational performance. as they

do not contribute to organisational effectiveness. Further. what may he equally damaging

to the organisation is the effect pseudo-OeBs may have on co-workers. If co-workers are

aware of the performance of pseudo-OCBs. negative outcomes such as discordant teams

and creating hostile work environments could emerge.

Both organisational citizenship behaviour and impression managcmcnt literaturc has often

focused on the outcomes for the actor performing the behaviours. such as on performance

ratings. or the effects on the target of the behaviour, which usually is the employce's

supervisor (Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Podsakoff et al 1993; Bolino & Turnley. 2003; Bolino.

Varela. Bande & Turnley. 2006; Organ. Podsakoff. & MacKenzie. 2006). In addition there

has only been a limited amount of research conducted on how peers react to being the

target of oeBs with or without impression management motives. It is important to

consider peer reactions as the performance ofOCBs amongst peers not only affects their

interpersonal relationships. but also the group dynamic. Thus the performance of oeBs

between two peers not only affects their interpersonal relationship but also impacts on

other employees in the team who observe the behaviour even if they were not involved in

the interaction (Banki. 2010). Podsakoff. MacKenzie. Paine and Bachrach (2000) found

that the performance of OCBs creates support. job sati sfaction and commitment for

employees. all of which are positive outcomes for employees. However. the reaction to the

performance ofOCBs may be dependent on the perceived motives of the behaviour.

105

Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler and Ensley (2004) found that employee joh satisfaction was

negatively related to levels of received OeBs when they perceived the behaviours to he

self-serving. When employees observed their peers performing oeBs with the intention of

influencing their supervisor, they may become threatened by their peers' display of their

skills (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995). This could create tension within the team

making other group members defensive and reluctant to communicate, hampering

cohesion and trust in the group (Banki, 2010). Therefore, research has indicated that

employees may have a negative reaction to their peers performing OeBs with impression

management motives. Employees engage in impression management in the hope of

influencing the perceptions others have of them (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Ifan employee's

aim is to 'look good' in the eyes of their supervisor, they could possibly engage in

behaviours that display their skills and abilities. With their display of abilities one could

assume that there is a possibility that bystanders may also observe their impression

management tactics, as well as the target of their behaviour. As noted previously, it can be

hard to accurately attribute people's motivation behind the performance of citizenship

behaviours (Eastman, 1994), but these attributions have important implications for the

employees' working relationships and coordination and cooperation between team

members (Snell & Wong, 1997). Past research indicates that employees may react

negatively to displays of oeBs when there are perceived motives. This alludes to the fact

that employees might try to discern the motivation behind other employees' behaviour,

allowing them to determine how to react.

Hypothesis 1: Participants will be able to distingui.\·h impressio/l

management behaviour from organisational citizenship behaviour

Previous studies have shown that employees who perform citizenship behaviours are

likely to develop a positive image in the eyes of their co-workers and supervisors (Bolino,

1999). In addition, Aynn (2003) found that employees who engage in high levels of

citizenship behaviours earned higher levels of social status from their peers.

106

However, when behaviours are seen as driven purely by self-serving motives, it is likely

that it will result in negative outcomes (Jones & Pittman, 19X2). In addition, Tepper et al

(2004) suggested that co-workers would scorn employees whose behaviour was seen to he

performed entirely for impression management purposes. This was supported by the

participants from the first study who expressed contempt for co-workers who they

believed were performing behaviours for impression management purposes. Examples

given by participants demonstrated the negative outcomes that can occur when co­

worker's OCB-Iike behaviours are believed to be disingenuous, such as dc-motivating

team members and creating hostility towards the co-worker. It does appear that

employees' perceptions influenced the outcome of these behaviours because when an

employee perceived a co-worker's performance of OCBs as genuine, employees were

motivated to follow their example and positive outcomes for the employees and the

organization can emerge. Therefore, the second hypothesis to be tested is:

Hypothesis 2: Scenarios presentillR Orxanisationlll citi::.ellsl!ip

behaviours will be perceived more positively tho II impression

management scenarios.

As mentioned previously, the development of Hofstede's (1980) cultural typologies

resulted in a surge in cross cultural research. One area of cross cultural research that has

flourished is the study of Asian collectivist cultures, resulting in many studies examining

the effects of cultural orientation on employee attitudes and behaviours (Ramamoorthy,

Kulkarni, Gupta & Flood. 2007). When originally conceptualised by Hofstede.

collectivism and individualism were bi-polar cultural values; currently most studies

examine collectivism and individualism as multi dimensional individual differences.

Collectivistic employees are characterised by a strong emphasis on subordinating their

personal interests to the goals of their in-group, interdependence •. fitting in' and

maintaining positive group relations. While individualistic employees tend to emphasise

the attainment of their own personal goals over the goals of the group, they arc

independent and distinguish themselves from others in a positi ve manner (Traindis, 1(95).

107

In the infancy of DCB research, the majority of studies utilized samples from Western

countries, in which a majority of employees would have an individualistic orientation.

However, research using collectivist and individualist samples has highlighted that there

are differences in OCB antecedents, performance and outcomes in individualistic versus

collectivist cultures and/or employees (Moorman & Blakely. 1995: Fancesco & Chen,

2004; Blakely. Srivastava, & Moorman. 2005). Research has found that collectivist

employees were more likely to perform OCBs than their individualistic counterparts. and

in addition they also found that collectivists were also more likely to view DeBs as in-role

behaviours than individualists (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Blakely et aI, 20(5).

Researchers believed this was due to collectivists placing a strong value on maintaining

harmony and loyalty to their in-group. which results in collectivist employees feeling

obligated to perform DCBs. This led some researchers to question if citizenship

behaviours would even exist for collectivist employees (Moorman & Blakely. 1995). The

results of these studies examining Asian collectivist employees created a view of Asian

employees as the model 'good citizen'. There is an almost folklore view of Asian

employees as always happy to perform beyond the call of duty. never complaining against

unjust treatment and always loyal and dedicated to their organisation.

However, responses from the interviews in the first study suggest that collectivist

employees may not always perform OCBs out of a sense of duty but rather out of a fear of

the repercussions that may arise if they do not perform citizenship behaviours. Vigoda­

Gadot (2006, 2(07) introduced the concept of compulsory citizenship behaviours (CCB).

in which employees feel forced to perform citizenship behaviours. While there have been

no studies investigating any cultural differences that might exist in CCBs, the results of

study I indicate that it might be more prevalent in collectivist cultures. As previously

mentioned, unlike individualistic employees. collectivists will respond to injustice with

unassertive and covert means. such as ingratiation (Erdogan & Liden. 2006). Asian

participants in study I cited examples in which they performed citizenship behaviours as a

means by which to create a favourable image in the eyes of their supervisors. and at the

108

same time, in the hope of protecting themselves from future negative outcomes. While the

British participants gave examples of co-workers using impression management motivated

citizenship behaviours as a means of affecting career progress through influencing

promotion decisions.

This suggests that not only do collectivist and individualist cmployees differ in their

performance of OCBs, but they may also differ in their performance and use of impression

management tactics. With individualist employees' concern over the achicvement of their

personal goals, they are more likely to be promotion focused than collectivists (Lee,

Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Collectivists, in contrast, whose primary goal is to 'fit in' and

maintain group harmony. are thought to be more focused in avoiding situations that would

be detrimental to group cohesion and the attainment of group goals (Elliot. Chirkov. Kim.

& Sheldon, 2001). Lalwani, Shrum and Chiu (2009) found that collectivist orientations

were related to the performance of impression management behaviours but individualistic

orientations were not; while individualist orientations were related to self deceptive

enhancement but collectivism was not. These results suggest that collectivist cmployees

may use impression management behaviours as a means of avoiding any future negative

outcomes and allowing themselves to appear to conform to the social norms. While

individualistic employees' performance of impression management behaviours are used in

a promotion focused manner, thus aiding them in attaining their personal goals. For

employees with collectivist orientation, their perceptions of impression management and

OCBs may be more closely aligned than individualistic employees, as it appears that their

performance of impression management tactics may be more akin to an in-role behaviour

to ensure their survival in the organisation.

Hypothesis 3a: Individualists will be more sensitive when distinguishing

between DCBs and 1M behaviours.

HypOThesis 3b: British participa1l1S will be more sensitive distinguishing

between DCBs and 1M behaviours.

109

While it has been predicted that Individualist and British participants will he

more sensitive when distinguishing between DCB and 1M behaviours, there has

been limited attention in the literature paid to the effect of culture on the

outcomes of these behaviours. Study I highlighted that the Asian and British

participants differ in their performance and use of DCBs and 1M hchaviours; it

would be fair to assume that these differences may have an ctlect on the

subsequent outcomes.

Hypothesis 4: Culture (Individualism and collectil'ism) IIlId COUll try will

affect the outcomes from lhe peifomlUnce of impressioll mUllagell/('/I1

and organisational citizenship behal'iours.

As previously mentioned, DeBs and impression management behaviours can overlap.

With the risk of negative outcomes that can arise, it is important to understand if

employees do make the distinction between these two behaviours. In addition,

understanding how employees react to their co-workers engaging in DeBs or impression

management behaviours, is important for organisational success. If employees react in a

negative manner to impression management motivated behaviour, organisations may

consider means by which they can discourage these open displays of impression

management behaviours. Study I highlighted differences in British and Asian participants'

conceptualisation of both OCB and impression management motivated behaviours,

including different aims from the performance of impression management behaviours.

This study aims to also identify any cultural differences in employee categorisation of

DeBs and impression management behaviours and SUbsequently, if these differences

effect the outcomes that might arise.

110

Method

Sample

Participants in this study were sampled from the United Kingdom and Indonesian

branches of a large multi-national bank. A response rate was unable to be calculated due

to the organisation's desire to distribute the links to the questionnaire via their own

'gatekeeper'. to prevent the disclosure of employee's e-mail addresses. After gaining access

to the organisation. employees were e-mailed information about the study. their rights as

participants and a link to an on-line questionnaire. A total of 123 employees from the

United Kingdom started the questionnaire. with a total of 64 British employees completing

the questionnaire. a completion rate of 52% completion rate. A total of 81 Indonesian

employees began the questionnaire. with a total of 70 Indonesian completing the full

questionnaire. a completion rate of 87.5%. In the group of British partidpants there were

31 males (48%) and 33 (52%) were female, with a mean age of 33 years. The Indonesian

group was made up of 28 males (40%) and 42 (60%) females with a mean age of 36.

Measures

Individualism-Collectivism

Individualist collectivist orientation was measured using Earley's (1993) 10 item scale.

This scale comprises an earlier scale created by Erez and Earley (1987) and Triandis and

coIleagues (Triandis. Bontempo. Betancourt. Bond. Leung. Brenes. Georgas. Hui. Marin.

Setiadi. Sinha. Verma, Spangenberg, Touzard & Montmollin, 1986; Triandis. Bontempo.

Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988). Items of the scale include items such as 'employees like to

work in a group rather than by themselves' and 'only those who depend upon themselves

get ahead in life'. Participants were asked to rate their responses ranging from I (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This scale has been used in many cross cultural studies

(Erez & Earley. 1987; Earley. 1989; Earley. 1993) and has been found to be

III

psychometrically valid with a Cronbach 's alpha of. 91. Responses were coded so that a

high score indicated collectivist beliefs and a low score indicated individualistic beliefs.

Scenario Design

To measure participants ability to distinguish between OCB and impression management

motivated behaviours and their perceptions of the outcomes a scenario design was uti Iil.ed.

Scenarios were created in which behaviours were presented to participants which had heen

manipulated to illustrate OCB or impression management behaviours. Other independent

variables used were the participants' country of origin (two levels United Kingdom or

Indonesia) and cultural orientation (two levels - individualist or collectivist). Participants

were presented with the scenarios, such as, "Imagine that in the organisation you work for

there is a co-worker who seems to take interest in your supervisor's personal life and

compliments them on their appearance" (See appendix 2 for OCB and impression

management scenarios). They were then asked "do you think your co-workers behaviour

is ... " and presented with a definition of OCBs and impression management and were

asked to rate the scenario as OCB, impression management or in-between the two

statements. Participants were then asked to rate the extent to which they thought the

behaviours in the scenario would affect organisational performance, the performer of the

behaviour and other employees, rating the effect from not at all to a great deal.

To create the scenarios, a number of items were taken from Bolino, Varela, Bande and

Turnley's (2006) scale of impression management behaviours and Kwantes, Karma, Juo

and Towson's (2008) scale of organisational citizenship behaviours, ensuring at least two

items from each subsection of the scales were used. These selected items were then

presented in a card sorting task to five experts from the area of occupational psychology.

They were asked to sort the items into categories of organisational citizenship behaviour

items, impression management items or unsure after being shown a definition of each of

the concepts. Items that all five of the experts agreed upon were then set aside to be used

as potential items for the scenario design.

112

The items which all of the experts agreed upon in the card sorting task were then used to

develop scenarios to be used in the questionnaire. Some of the items were similar (such as

'being punctual every day' and 'arriving early to prepare for the day) and were combined

to create a scenario. Six scenarios were created, three scenarios taken from impression

management items and three taken from organisational citizenship hehaviour items.

Procedure

Since the questionnaire aimed to assess the effect of cultural orientation, participants from

Indonesia were used, and for that reason the questionnaire was translated into the

Indonesian language. To ensure that the translation did not affect the meaning of the

questions, back translation was utilized. The first set of back translated questions, revealed

issues with the translation, so the questionnaire was back translated once more. To ensure

that the questionnaire was appropriately translated, and in addition to checking the back

translation copy, native Indonesian speakers from the University of Nottingham were

asked to read through the Indonesian version of the questionnaire, to ensure the wording

was correct.

Once the questionnaire was developed and the Indonesian version was translated, the

study was piloted on 10 British participants and 13 Indonesian participants. The pilot

study also included a comments section to pick up any problems participants were having

with the questionnaire. No major problems were found with the questionnaire. However,

the final questionnaire did have one additional question which asked participants if they

were born in the country which they were currently working in.

Due to the multicultural nature of many multi-national companies, it is likely that many of

the employees may be foreign nationals working overseas. While it is important to

acknowledge that organisations may have a diverse workforce, this study wanted to ensure

that the results would not be distorted by employees who have not originated from the

culture they are currently working in. While individualism and collectivism can he an

113

individual difference, a person who was born and raised in an collectivist culture but

currently working in an individualist culture may have different responses from those who

have always resided in that country. So participants were asked if they were born in the

country they were currently working in. If they answered yes, the survey would continue,

but however if they answered no, they were thanked for their time and the questionnaire

would end. Within the Indonesian sample all participants answered yes to the question.

While in the United Kingdom sample, of the 119 participants that answered the question,

80 participants said yes (67.2%) and 39 were not born in the country they were currently

working in (32.8%).

Results

Table 4 presents the mean scores of the participants' ratings of the scenarios as presenting

OCB or 1M behaviours. Mixed design ANOV As were performed to evaluate the

differences between the ratings of the OCB and impression management scenarios and

any differences in the ratings by participant's country or cultural orientation.

Table 4 Mean Scores of participants , Ratings of the &enario ... a." OCB or 1M aao.'ts country and cultural orientation

Scenario OCB Scenario 1M

UK 1.58 4.10

Indonesian 2.17 3.64

Total 1.89 3.86

Individualist 1.96 3.85

Collectivist 1.84 3.87

Total 1.89 3.86

Note: a low score signifies OCB behaviour and a high score as an 1M behaviour

As predicted by the first hypothesis, participants were able to distinguish between

impression management and organisational citizenship behaviour scenarios. Significant

main effects of behaviour were found when examining participants rating of the scenarios

and their country of origin, F( 1,132)= 429.46, P <.00 1. with a large effect size (partial Eta

squared = 0.77). This result illustrates firstly, that the manipulation of the scenarios was

114

successful. Secondly. it shows that there were significant differences in participants mean

scores of OCB scenarios and impression management scenarios. There was no main

effect of country on the ratings. F( 1.132)= 0.68. ns. as ignoring the scenario behaviours.

there were no significant differences in the ratings of the two countries.

In addition the mixed design ANOY A of the ratings of the scenarios and the pal1icipants

cultural orientation also found a main effect. F( 1.132)= 339.03. p<.OO I. the behaviours

accounted for 72% of the overall variance.

Table 5 Mean scores of outcome ratings by UK and Indonesian participants

Organisational Co-worker Other Employees

performance

UK Indonesia UK Indonesia UK Indonesia

OCB 4.31 4.24 4.05 4.10 4.14 4.02

1M 1.74 2.09 2.81 2.74 1.72 2.00

Table 6 Mean scores of outcome ratings by Individualist and Collectiv;.~t participants

Organisational Co-worker Other Employees

performance

Ind Col Ind Col Ind Col

OCB 4.22 4.32 3.98 4.15 4.02 4.13

1M 2.06 1.81 2.84 2.72 2.01 \.75

The second hypothesis predicted that participants would rate the outcomes of impression

management and OCB scenarios differently. Tables 5 and 6 present the mean scores of the

variables. Results of the mixed design ANOV As performed found significant main effects

for all outcome ratings of the scenarios. When rating the effect of the scenario behaviour

on organisational performance. significant main effects were found when examining

participants' country of origin and their cultural orientation; F (I, 132)=654.15. p<.OO I

and F(I.132)=628.92. p<.OOI respectively. and in both cases the scenario behaviours

accounted for 83% of the overall variance. In addition. there was no main effect of country

or cultural orientation on ratings. Participants rated impression management scenarios as

having little positive effect on organisational performance. while OCB scenarios were

115

rated as having a positive effect on the organisation's performance. When rating the effect

the scenarios behaviours would have on the person performing them, participants rated the

effects of OCB and impression management behaviours significantly different. The mixed

design ANOY A examining participants ratings and their country of origin, found a

significant main effect, FCI,132)=168.70, p<.OOI, and a significant main effect was also

found when examining the rating and cultural orientation, F( 1,132)= 167.17, p<.OO I, and

in both cases the behaviours accounted for 56% of the overall variance. No main effect of

country or culture was found; F (1,132)= 1.04, ns and F( 1,132)=0.62, ns. Participants'

mean scores illustrated that participants thought that impression management behaviours

would have little benefit for the co-workers performing the behaviour, whilst OCBs would

benefit the performer.

The final of the outcome ratings assesses to what extent participants think their co-workers

performance of the scenario behaviour will benefit other employees in the organisation.

The mean scores of the participants' ratings showed that participants seemed to believe

that impression management behaviours would not have beneficial effects for other

employees in the organisation; while participants thought that organisational citizenship

behaviours would have a beneficial effect on other employees in the organisation.

Significant differences between participants' ratings of the DCB and impression

management scenarios were found when performing the mixed design ANOY As. When

looking at the ratings and participants' country of origins, a significant main effect was

found, F(l,132)=621.19, p<.OOI, with a partial Eta squared of 0.83, accounting for 83% of

the variance. There was no significant main effect of country on ratings, F( I, 132)= 1.14,

ns. In addition, when looking at ratings and participants' cultural orientation, a significant

main effect was also found F( 1,132)=600.80. p<.OO I, which accounted for 82% of the

variance.

This study also aimed to investigate if culture effected participants' perceptions.

Hypothesis 3a and 3b propositioned that cultural orientation and country of origin would

affect the way participants distinguished between OCB and impression management

116

scenarios. Hypothesis 3b was partly supported. When examining participants' ratings of

the scenarios and their country of origin a significant interaction effect was found,

F( 1,132)=28.80, p<.DOI; the effect size was small to moderate. The partial Eta squared

was 0.18, which indicates that the interaction of behaviour and country accounted fix I W'k

of the overall variance. Figure 2 shows the interaction between participants' ratings of the

scenario behaviours and their country of origin. From the results we see that the

Indonesian participants appear to view the impression management and OCB scenarios as

more similar than the British participants. No significant interactions effect was found

when looking at the participants' ratings and their cultural orientation, F( 1,132) =0.44, ns,

providing no support for hypothesis 3a.

4.5 "-l 4 8 . ~ 3.5 =

.. .. .c:

Q,I 3 = 0 2.5 ·c

= = 2 Q,I

rJJ OS 1.5

• .... -

"-l CIJ

= ',c

&! 0.5

0 UK Indonesia

Country of Origin

Figure 2 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on ratings of Scenario behaviours

I. .-()csj l_I~1

The final hypothesis of this study predicted that culture would affect participants' ratings

of the outcomes from co-workers' performance of impression management and

organisational citizenship behaviours, and this too was partially supported by the results.

The effect of the performance of 1M or OCB scenarios on organisational performance was

found to have a significant interaction effect between the Indonesian and United Kingdom

participants and their ratings, F( 1,132)=5.06, p<.02, accounting for 3.7% of the overall

variance. As you can see in Figure 3, Indonesian participants rated the effects of

117

impression management on organisational performance more highly than the British

participants; while the ratings of OCB between the two countries were almost identical.

When comparing the ratings by the participants' individualistic or collectivist orientations,

no significant interaction effect was found. F(1 .132)=3.39, ns.

5

= 4.5 Q • • 8

~ 4 \,I

= '5: ~ 3.5 ~ e .c ... 3 1l~

.S !. 2.5 ;-a 5 ! 2 ~-= "Q ,~ 1.5

~i I = eJ) .= 5 0.5 ~ =:

• •

0 ~~~~ ~--~-'-~~-----,

UK Indonesia

Country of Origin

Figure 3 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on ratings of the effect of Scenario Behaviours on Organisational Performance

While a significant difference was found between participants' rating of the effect OCB

and impression management scenarios had on the co-workers performing them, no

significant interaction effect was found. There was no difference found between

participants' ratings of the effect when comparing them by their country of origin.

F( 1.132) = 0.35. ns. or their cultural orientation. F( 1.132)=1.99. ns. Finally. significant

i • OCB

I ___ IM

interaction effects were found when comparing the effects of the co-workers performance

of OCB and impression management behaviours on other employees, as seen in Figure 4

and 5. When comparing employees by their country of origin and their ratings, the mixed

design ANOY A found a significant interaction effect. F(I.132)=4. 74, p<.03, with a partial

Eta squared of 0.04. Once again there was a larger gap between the British participants'

ratings of effect of OCB and impression management. The participants' cultural

orientation also appears to have an effect on their ratings of the outcome of the behaviours

as they too have a significant interaction effect. F( 1.132)=4.09. p<.045. with a partial Eta

118

squared of 0.03. However, it was expected that the Individualists ratings would be similar

to the British participants. However, their ratings were more aligned with the Indone~ian

participants, as they also had a smaller gap in the ratings of the effects of OeBs and

impression management behaviours.

4.5

~------------------------------------~

• •

UK Indonesia

Country of Origin

Figure 4 Interaction Effect of Country of Origin on Ratings of tire Effect of Scenario Behaviours on Other Employees

... 4.5 cu

.c: 4 ~ ~-------------------------------------~

= = 3.5

~ 3 ':: ~ III

.c: t 2.5 J~ =- 2 'C CI. ~ e = cu 1.5 cu

• • ~ ~

t 0.5 .:: ~ 0

Individualist Collectivist

Cultural Orientation

Figure 5 Interaction Effect of Cultural Orientation on Ratings of tire Effect of tile Scenario Belraviours on Other Employees

119

i --"'--OCB.

I-it-IM :

I· I --... -- nCB I _it_IM .

I. I

Discussion

The aim of this study was to get a better understanding of employees' ability to categorise

co-workers' performance of citizenship or impression management motivated behaviours

and how this in turn affects the outcome. Another aim of the study was to explore if

cultural differences would affect employees perceptions of these behaviours. Consistent

with the first hypothesis, it was found that participants were able to distinguish between

OCB and impression management behaviours in the scenarios. Hypothesis 3b was also

supported as Indonesian participants appeared to view impression management and OCB

scenarios as more similar than the British participants. However, hypothesis 3a was not

supported as no significant interaction effect was found between individualism

collectivism and the mean scores of OCB and impression management scenarios.

The scenarios presenting citizenship behaviours were perceived more positively than those

presenting impression management behaviours, thus supporting the second hypothesis.

Participants rated the citizenship behaviours as having a positive benefit to organisational

performance, the performer and other employees; while impression management was rated

as having no benefit to the outcome measures. The fourth hypothesis, which predicted that

culture would affect the outcomes of the scenarios, was partially supported. A significant

interaction effect was found between participants' country of origin and their ratings of the

scenarios effect on organisational performance. British and Indonesian participants had

near identical ratings of the effect of OCBs on organisational performance. thus rating it as

having a great deal of benefit to organisational performance. However. Indonesian

participants rated the effect of impression management on organisational performance

more highly than participants from the United Kingdom. No significant interaction effect

was found between participants' individualist or collectivist orientation and their rating of

the effect of the scenarios on organisational performance. The next outcome measure

aimed to examine participants' views on how OCB or impression management behaviours

would benefit the performer. No cultural differences (by country or individualist

collectivist orientation) were found; however, results did show that participants across

groups viewed the effects of the behaviours as being very different. Citizenship

120

behaviours were rated as having a great deal of benefit for the performer. while impression

management behaviours would have little benefit to the performer. The final outcome

measure was used to investigate the effect the scenario would have on other employees.

Participants rated OCBs as having a beneficial effect on other employees. while

impression management behaviours would not benetit other employees. Participants'

country of origin was found to have a moderating effect on ratings of the effect of the

scenario behaviours on other employees. British participants rated OeBs and 1M

behaviours quite differently, leaving a much larger gap between their ratings compared to

the Indonesian participants. A significant interaction effect was also found hetwecn

participants' cultural orientations and their ratings of the effect of the scenario behaviours

on other employees. It was found that collectivist participants rated the behaviours as

being more different than the individualistic employees. which was opposite to what was

expected. Since Indonesia is a more collectivist country. it was expected that the

collectivist results would be aligned with the results of the Indonesian participants.

Research has found that engaging in citizenship behaviours is positively related to

performance evaluations and reward allocation decisions (Allen & Rush. 1998: johnson.

Erez. Kiker. & Motowidlo. 2002: Podsakoff, Whiting. Podsakoff & Blume, 2009). which

suggests that organisations value OCBs. However. before organisations engage in ways to

foster this performance, more attention should be given to the potential negative

consequences that may arise when employees engage in citizenship behaviours. Negative

consequences may arise as a result of the overlap that exists between OCBs and

impression management motivated behaviours. The potentially positive outcomes from

employees engaging in OCBs, makes their performance desirable to employees with

impression management motives. Researchers are divided over the consequences of self­

serving OCBs. with Podsakoff et al (1993) arguing that motivation does not matter as long

as the employee performs the behaviour. while Schnake (1991) believes that it will

produce negative outcomes for the organisation. While the debate continues on the

contribution to organisational performance self-serving OCBs have, negative

consequences may arise due to co-workers perceptions of the behaviour. This study

121

illustrates that employees do differentiate between citizenship behaviours and impression

management behaviours and as a result this affects the subsequent outcome of the

behaviour.

The results show variation in the ratings of the outcomes of the impression management

scenarios across country and cultures, while the ratings of the outcomes of OCBs almost

remained the same across participants' culture and countries. Participants viewed OCBs as

contributing to organisational performance and having benefits to the performer and other

employees, indicating that citizenship behaviours are perceived most positively. In

addition. the similar ratings across cultures suggest that citizenship behaviours are

perceived positively universaJly. Flynn (2003) found that those who engaged in high

levels of citizenship behaviours attained higher levels of social status amongst their peers.

It is easy to imagine that employees will be well liked by their co-workers if they go

beyond their formal job requirements to aid their department in meeting deadlines. A

participant from the first study explained that seeing a co-worker working very hard

motivated her to put more effort in her own work, therefore suggesting that when an

employee sees a co-worker performing what they believe to be a genuine OC8, it has the

potential to lead to positive outcomes such as increased organisational performance and at

the same time making them well liked in the workplace.

It has been found that the use of impression management tactics is common place in

organisations (Bolino & Turnley, 1999) and it is likely that all employees will use

impression management tactics at some point. However. studies, and the results of this

study, have shown that employees appear to be quite critical of their usc. Researchers have

speculated that perceiving a co-worker's behaviour as being motivated by impression

management would result in dysfunctional outcomes. Tepper et al (2004) supported this

view by finding that an employee's job satisfaction was negatively related to levels of

received OCB when they perceive the behaviour to be self-serving, believing that

employees would scorn co-workers who they believe to be performing the behaviour

entirely for impression management purposes. It has been hypothesised that this negative

122

reaction may be due to co-workers feeling threatened by the employees' use of impression

management to display their skills and abilities aimed at senior staff (Rosenfeld et aI,

1995). Employees' negative reaction to the performance of oeBs with impression

management motives has deeper implications, as their use not only affects the

interpersonal relationship between the performer and target, but also alters the group

dynamics, which in turn could create tension within the team (Banki, 2(10).

Participants appear to be critical of the use of impression management motivated

behaviours, and this is reflected in their ratings of impression management scenarios. As

stated earlier, impression management scenarios were rated as having little benefit to

organisational performance, the performer and other employees. In addition to these

findings, cultural differences in the ratings of the impression management scenarios were

also found. Impression management can be used by employees to achieve career success,

influence their supervisor's evaluations, allow the employee to appear as a 'good soldier'

or even be used to protect the employee from negative outcomes through ingratiation.

With the wide range of uses of impression management tactics, it has been suggested that

there are cultural differences in their use.

Lee et al (2000) postulated that with individualistic employees' concern over the

attainment of their own goals, they would be more likely to be promotion focused than

collectivist employees. Collectivist, on the other hand, are likely to be concerned in

'fitting in' and maintaining group harmony as well as avoiding situations that would be

detrimental to group cohesion (Elliot et aI. 200 I). Study 1 provided examples whereby

Asian participants cited examples in which their performance of OCBs were used as

means to create a favourable image in the eyes of their supervisor, with the aim of

protecting themselves from any future negative outcomes; while British participants gave

examples of co-workers using impression management as a means of influencing

promotion decisions. If this is the case, it may be that Asian employees would be

accustomed to impression management behaviours being used to ingratiate employees

with their supervisor to ensure their survival and therefore be more accommodating to the

123

behaviour; while British employees would be more suspicious of behaviour they perceived

to be motivated by impression management, as it could be viewed as competition to their

own career progression.

The results of this study suggest that cultural differences in the perceptions of impression

management behaviours do exist. Indonesian participants rated impression management as

having more effect on organisational performance than British participants. This

difference in ratings was also found in Indonesian and British participants rating of the

effect of the scenario behaviours on other employees. It may be that for British

participants the use of impression management motivated behaviour is viewed with

disdain due to the fact it can be used to influence promotion decisions and could be seen

as a threat to their own career progression; while Indonesian participants may view their

use as slightly more acceptable. Based on the examples provided by participants in the

first study, impression management could be used to ensure employees 'look good' in the

eyes of their supervisor to avoid future negative outcomes. With that in mind. avoiding

negative outcomes may be more acceptable to other employees as it promotes a

harmonious environment in the organisation, which would be beneficial to the

organisation.

The results only partially supported the hypothesis that culture affects the outcomes of the

scenario behaviours. No cultural differences were found when examining participants'

ratings of the effect of the scenario behaviours on the performer. However, the results do

reinforce the positive perception of citizenship behaviours and the negative perceptions

associated with the performance of impression management behaviours. While research

has proved that impression management tactics can be beneficial to the performer (Judge

& Bretz. 1994; Wayne & Liden, 1995; Bolino et al. 2(06). the results suggest that

participants have a different view. Participants rated OCBs as having a great deal of effect

on the performer, while impression management was rated as having little effect on the

performer. The ratings illustrate the contrasting perceptions of DeBs and impression

management. Participants' rating of impression management as having little effect on the

124

performer perhaps reflects participants' negative perceptions of the behaviour rather than

their genuine thoughts on how it benefits the performer.

It appears that the performance of OeBs is generally received positively, with perf()rmers

gaining higher social status (Flynn, 2003) and citizenship behaviours being viewed as

beneficial to the organisation, the performer and other employees. These findings support

the view proposed by Organ (1988, 1995), that high levels of citizenship behaviours

would create a positive climate in the workplace. With the promise of harmonious work

environments and improved effectiveness and efficiency. it is understandable that many

organisations encourage the performance of OCBs. Organisations have promoted the usc

of OeBs, whether knowingly or unknowingly, through reward allocation decisions,

performance evaluations and other rewards given to employees who engage in OeBs.

However, organisations have to be careful how they foster employees' usc of citizenship

behaviours. As previously mentioned, the benefits that can be acquired through the

performance of organisational citizenship behaviours makes them desirable to employees

with impression management motives. The result of this study illustrate that the

performance of behaviours with impression management motives can threaten

organisational harmony. Supporting the findings of Tepper et al (2004) and Jones and

Pittman (1982), the performance of impression management behaviours can result in

negative outcomes and lead to co-workers scorning the employees utilizing citizenship

behaviours to achieve their goals.

Based on the results of this study, British organisations should take extra care with

fostering citizenship behaviours and avoiding the use of impression management

motivated behaviours. Results showed participants have a dichotomous view of OCRs and

impression management, that OCBs were associated with positive outcomes, while

impression management were associated with negative outcomes. This suggests

employees have a critical view of impression management, which could result in fractured

working environments, fostering distrust, competitive attitudes and a lack of cooperation

between employees. To avoid this, organisations could foster OeB performance through

125

the creation of a supportive working environment and encouraging a social exchange

between themselves and their employees, and by creating an environment where

employees are happy to give back to their organisation and co-workers. In addition. the

use of objective measures of performance will also discourage the use of impression

management motives (Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson & Bratton, 20(4). Indonesian

organisations should also be cautious when encouraging the usc of OCBs, as the results

suggest that their conceptualisation of OCBs and impression management behaviours

differ from those oftheir British counterparts. Indonesian results suggest a slightly higher

tolerance for the performance of impression management. One explanation for this view is

that their performance of impression management is used as ingratiation rather than career

progression. Study I participants highlighted the need to ingratiate oneself with the

supervisor as a means of protecting themselves from future negative outcomes.

The results of this study did illustrate that culture has an effect on perception and

outcomes from the performance of OCBs and impression management motivated

behaviours. However, while results showed that a participant's country of origin had an

effect on outcome ratings, there was little support for the effect cultural orientation had. It

may be that an individual employee's cultural orientation is less important than the

cultural orientation of the majority. If an employee has an individualistic orientation hut

works in an organisation where the majority of the employees have a collectivist

orientation, they may have to conform to the norms of the majority. In recent years we

have seen more people relocating for education and employment. A tcstanlent to thi~ can

be found in the responders in the United Kingdom sample, where, of the 119 employees

that responded to my questionnaire, 32.8% of the employees said they were not born in the

United Kingdom. These employees may be working in an organisation where their

cultural orientation may not be aligned with the majority of the employees. This study did

not include the respondents who were not born in the country they currently work in as it

would add too many additional cultural factors to consider. A future study could

investigate the effects of a diverse work force on their perceptions and performance of

citizenship behaviours, and to identify if employees have to adhere to the norms of the

126

cultural majority. However. this lack of significant interaction effects for individualism

collectivism may be due to the measure used. When examining the results of the

individualism collectivism measure. a number of participants scored towards the middle of

the scale making it hard to interpret if the participant was a collectivist or individualist.

Participants were divided into individualist and collectivist groups using a cut off point at

the 50th percentile. However, this did mean that a number of participants were dose to the

median yet were placed into one of the two groups. This study was limited by the smaller

sample size; future research may need to have a larger sample size to allow researchers to

only use participants who scored in the top and bottom quartiles.

Participants in the study rated the outcomes of the performance of organisational

citizenship behaviours positively and rated impression management motivated behaviours

as having little effect, and this included the benefits for the people performing them.

While this illustrated the differences in their perceptions of the behaviour, these

differences may have been more apparent if participants were able to rate the effects of the

behaviour as having negative outcomes. Participants were asked to what extent they

thought the behaviour would affect the outcome measures and were given choices ranging

from 'not at all' to 'a great deal'. Ifparticipants were given the option of the behaviours

having a great deal of effect to having a negative effect, the differences between their

perceptions of DeBs and impression management behaviours would be stronger.

Despite the potential limitations of the study, evidence was found that illustrates

participants' ability to distinguish between OeBs and impression management behaviours

and how these categorisations of the behaviours affect the outcomes. In addition, evidence

of cultural influences on these perceptions was also found. The results of this study

highlighted the importance of not exclusively focusing on the effects of the performance

of these behaviours on supervisors, but also on employees who may witness their co­

workers performing OCBs and perceived impression management behaviours. This also

highlights the importance of not simply focusing on the antecedents to citizenship

performance, but also as to how their performance affects the employees. In addition it

127

emphasises the importance to consider cultural differences in the perceptions of OCBs and

impression management behaviours. Early research into the use of OCBs by collectivist

employees, suggested that OCBs may not exist for collectivist employees (Moorman &

Blakely, 1995), due to their loyalty to their in-group OCBs would be akin to an in-role

behaviour. However, study 1 highlighted the occurrence of compulsory citizenship

behaviours amongst Asian employees, citing an inability to say no to supervisors and the

use of ingratiation to prevent future negative outcomes. This study'S results identified

differences in perceptions of the outcomes that would arise from the usc of OCBs and

impression management behaviours. These two studies have emphasised the importance to

gain a better understanding of how various cultures conceptualise and perform citizenship

behaviours. Current research in citizenship behaviours have highlighted the need to move

away from previous assumptions. It does appear from the results, that Asian employees do

indeed conceptualise and use OCBs differently from their western counterparts. The next

step is to examine if indeed Asian employees are motivated to perform OCBs through

prosocial motives (the traditional assumption), impression management or compulsory

citizenship behaviours and if these motivations affect their choice of types of citizenship

behaviours and subsequent outcomes.

128

Chapter 6

The interaction of motives, citizenship behaviours and outcomes in individualist and collectivist employees

Introduction

Motives of Organisational Citizenship Behaviours

As discussed in the first chapter, since Bateman and Organ (1983) coined the term

organisational citizenship behaviour, it has received increasing attention and has been

thought of by some researchers as one of the most desirable employee behaviours

(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Smith. Organ and Near (1983)

theorised that for an organisation to function successfully, their employees must be willing

to go beyond their formally prescribed job roles; therefore emphasizing OCBs as key to

organisational success. Identifying the causes of these behaviours became an important

factor, as understanding the motivations behind the behaviours would allow organisations

to foster the performance of oeBs.

Early research assumed that employees engaged in OeBs as a reaction or response to their

perceptions of their job and organisation (Rioux & Penner, 200 1). Dispositional factors

and social exchange theory were frequently used to explain the motivation behind OeB

performance (Bolino et aI, 1999; Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006). The early beliefs

regarding the motivations behind OCB performance were biased towards the positive. and

it may be that this was due to the fact that researchers were guided by the definition of

oeBs which stated that it was H ••• not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal

reward system ... " (Organ, 1988, p. 4), which precluded the performance of OeBs for

personal gain. The focus of the positive aspect of oeBs is exemplified by the inclusion of

altruism as one of Organ 's five dimensions of OeBs (Organ, 1988). This view that OeBs

129

were synonymous with prosocial behaviour is highlighted by Smith ct al (19H3. p.(52)

discussing antecedents ofOCBs by maintaining that ..... because much of what we call

citizenship behaviour has an altruistic character, it seemed worthwhile to explore the

social psychology literature for determinants of altruism." As the literature developed.

other antecedents to OCB performance were found, such as job satisfaction. organisational

commitment, perceived fairness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Organ & Ryan.

1995), and all of these antecedents have a positi ve connotation. reinforcing the view that

OCB performance stems from "desirable forces within individuals, their work groups or

their organisations" (Bolino, Tumely & Niehoff, 2004, p. 235).

While the majority of the early OCB research was fixated on the positive aspects of

OCBs, some researchers started to question if OCBs could arise from self-serving

motives. For example Podsakoff, McKenzie & Hui (1993) found that employees were

aware of the benefits that can arise from OCB performance and acknowledged that some

employees may engage in OCB performance to make themselves 'look good'. Bolina et al

(2004) highlighted that while researchers had started making observations which

countered the prevailing notions of OCBs, often these observations only appeared as

footnotes or concluding thoughts, never as the primary focus of research. Now however,

more researchers were starting to focus on other aspects of OeBs, rather than persisting in

their overtly positive portrayal. Penner, Midili and Kegelmeyer (1997) proposed that the

performance of OCBs did not have to be just reactionary; it could also be a proactive

behaviour used by employees to achieve their goals and meet certain needs, and as a result

researchers started including self-serving motives as causes of oeB performance

(Eastman, 1994; Bolino, 1999; Rioux & Penner, 200 I; Bolino et aI, 20(4). Bolino ( 1(99)

highlighted that there was an overlap between the performance of OeBs and impression

management tactics. Engagement in OCBs can be image enhancing and make the

employee 'look good', which in tum could result in benefits to the employee (Fandt &

Ferris, 1990; Eastman, 1994; Bolino, 1999). Employees who perform high levels ofOCBs

would be seen as good citizens in the organisation or a 'good soldier' (Bateman & Organ,

1983). With the knowledge of the image enhancing effect ofOCBs. some employees may

130

not be 'good soldiers' doing good, but rather they may be 'good actors' trying to look

good.

Podsakoff et al (1993) suggested it was not only employees who were aware of the

benefits that could be gained through the performance of OCBs; organisations were also

keyed into this outcome. Organ and his colleagues (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan. 1995)

proposed that OCBs create a positive climate in the workplace and in addition improve the

effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation. This perhaps explains the value placed on

OCBs by organisations and why many organisations encourage their performance (8olino

& Tunley, 2003). OCBs can be encouraged through organisations creating a culture or

climate of OCB by treating their employees fairly. supporting their needs and ensuring

they have a satisfying work environment, which in tum encourages employees to be good

citizens (Chen, Lin, Tung & Ko, 2(08). Organisations can also encourage their employees

through the norms of the organisation with statements about how employees should

behave or through stories of other employees' admirable behaviour (Bolino, Turnley,

Gilstrap, & Suazo, 2010). However, there are times that OCBs are not implicitly

encouraged - when employees feel pressure by supervisors or co-workers to comply.

Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2007) introduced the concept of compulsory citizenship behaviours.

in which OCBs emerge as a response to external pressure placed on the employee. While

the pressure placed on employees by their supervisors or co-workers is not physical or a

direct threat on the employees. there is an implied hostility which can cause a sense of an

inability to refuse (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007) and although not largely considered in the

literature as a motivation behind OCB performance, it does represent an explanation

behind some employees OCB performance.

Dimensions of Citizenship behaviours

Katz (1964) proposed that for an organisation to function successfully their employees

must display innovative and spontaneous behaviours that go beyond their prescribed job

roles. As mentioned in the literature review chapter, there have been a number of

131

researchers who have developed alternatives to Organ's (1988) five dimension framC'work

of OCB - one such example is provide by Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks ( 1(95) who

combined the work of Katz (1964) and Organ's (1988) categorisation of OCB to create a

typology of OCBs that distinguished affiliative behaviours from challenging behaviours.

Affiliative citizenship behaviours (such as helping co-workers, being courteous or

working additional hours) maintain the status quo by supporting the existing work process

(Van Dyne et aI, 1995). They are interpersonal and aim to he cooperative (Van Dyne &

lePine, 1998; Grant & Mayer, 2(09) and are especially important in completing tasks that

require employees to work together as a team (Choi, 2007). Challenging citizenship

behaviours, on the other hand, aim to challenge the status qUll hy questioning and

improving upon existing work processes and relationships (Van Dyne et ai, 1(95). They

are change orientated (unlike affiliative behaviours which are other oriented) and can

create conflict and damage relationships (Van Dyne & LePine, 1(98).

The term 'helping' may be seen as an archetypal example of an affiliative behaviour in

that it is not only seen as 'non controversial' but it helps to develop and maintain

relationships (Van Dyne & lePine, 1998). Helping behaviours are also one of the most

frequently studied forms of OCB and is often held up as the quintessential example of

citizenship behaviours. While affiliative citizenship behaviours have received a great deal

of attention by researchers, challenging citizenship behaviours have been studied far less

often (McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison & Turban, 2(07). Yet it has been argued that the

literature should broaden its scope to also include behaviours that aim to improve

organisational performance (Van Dyne & lePine, 1998; Morrision & Phelps, 1(99).

These challenging citizenship behaviours that aim to improve organisational functioning

include voice. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) defined voice as " ... making innovative

suggestions or change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even

when others disagree" (p.109). Research into OCBs has generally focused its attention on

affiliative behaviours, while much less attention has been paid to innovative behaviours

such as challenging citizenship behaviours (Moon, Van Dyne & Wrobel, 2(05). Choi

(2007) argued against the emphasis on aftiliative behaviours. stating that a positive

132

working environment and hard working employees may not be sufficient to improve

organisational performance. This is exemplified though a statement of Straw and Boettger

(1990) that "a worker who goes beyond the call of duty to accomplish a misconceived job

may actually be more dangerous to an organisation than a more mundane performer"

(p.537). Organisations need employees who go beyond the call of duty but they also need

employees who will identify problems or suggest more etlective ways to operate.

Relating back to the theories of Katz (1964), organisations need innovation and voice to

allow them to remain dynamic and flexible in this time of increasing competitioll (Frese.

Fay, Hilburger, Leng & Tag, 1997; Bettencourt, 2004).

Employee Motivation and Citizenship Behaviours

The motives for OCBs are many and complex, and although research has moved away

from the idea that other-serving motives originated out of an employee's 'good will', there

is still some way to go to identifying these motives and how they might affect their

performance of DeBs. Research has established that citizenship behaviours are predicted

by prosocial motives (Rioux & Penner, 2001), but more investigation is needed to

understand how the motivation effects the choice of citizenship behaviour. It is thought

that employees who have prosocial motives will be more likely to engage in self

sacrificing behaviours and prioritise the needs of co-workers and the organisations ahead

of their own needs (Barry & Friedman, 1998; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2(04). This suggests

that employees will engage in both other oriented behaviours, such as helping, and

behaviours that can help the organisations, such as voice. Van Dyne and lePine (1998)

characterised affiliative behaviours as 'it's okay', as employees are upholding the status

quo, while challenging behaviours were characterised as 'it could be better', as employees

are threatening the status quo. Engaging in behaviours such as voice is the fuel for change

in an organisation, as they set out to challenge work processes to improve the

organisation. However, the performance of voice can also run the risk of harming an

employee's reputation, as it can create conflict and damage relationships (Asht(xd,

133

Rothbard. Piderit. & Dutton. 1998; Van Dyne & LePine. 1998). Grant and Mayer (2009)

highlighted that prosocial motives can be a 'double edged sword' for employees as they

are inclined to both affiliative and challenging citizenship behaviours. Employees with

prosocial motives engage in organisational citizenship behaviours because of a desire to

help others, as well as the organisation (Dmoto & Snyder. 1995; Barry & Friedman.

1998); as a result they are less likely to be concerned with the benefits they might receive

or the personal consequences from performing DCBs and instead perform citil.enship

behaviours because "it is the right thing to do" (Halbesleben, Bowler, Bolino, Turnley.

2010, p. 1458). Consequently, employees with strong prosoeial motives are likely to

ignore the risks to their own reputation and put the needs of the organisation and their co­

workers ahead of their own needs. As such, the first goal of the study is to test the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis J: Employees with strong prosocial motil'es will engage in both a.lmia/iI'i' lind

challenging citizenship behaviours.

High self monitors have been described as 'social chameleons' who are awarc ofthc

suitability of the image they project and change their behaviour and attitudes to suit the

situations they find themselves in (Snyder, 1974, 1987). In addition, employees with

strong impression management motives are careful to avoid creating a negativc image in

the eyes of others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Employees arc

aware of the benefits that can be gained through the performance of DCBs; furthermore,

employees who perform high levels of citizenship behaviours are also found to achieve

higher levels of social status from their co-workers (Flynn, 2(03). Bolino (1999) argued

that citizenship behaviours were not just carried out by 'good soldiers' who aim to help

other people, but also by 'good actors' who aim to help improve their image in the eyes of

others. Halbesleben et al (2010) highlighted that employees with impression management

motives are likely to be selective with the citizenship behaviours they choose to perform

in order to control the consequences of its performance. For example, employees with

impression management concerns may choose to take on a project that is certain to

134

succeed for which they will receive praise and acknowledgement, without any thought if it

would benefit the organisation or not. In addition, Grant and Mayer (2009) highlighted

that employees with impression management motives would avoid forms of challenging

citizenship behaviours (e,g. voice) in order to ingratiate themselves with co-workers

without the risk of 'rocking the boat'. With this in mind, employees with impression

management motives should be more likely to engage in citizenship hehaviours hut may

restrict their behaviours to those that will not harm their reputation. This leads to the

second research hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Impression managemelll nUJtil'es will he positil'eiy related to l{l.Iiliatil'('

citizenship behaviour.

Both prosocial and impression management motives predict the performance of

citizenship behaviours (Rioux & Penner, 2001). However, these motives have tended to he

regarded as independent and not as interacting. Employees may well be 'good soldiers' or

'good actors', but "it is likely that individuals' motives generally are mixed" (Bolino,

1999, p.83). Indeed, Rioux and Penner (200t) found a positive correlation between

prosocial motives and impression management motives. Rather than treating these motives

as separate and independent of each other, researchers have started to debate if employees

can be 'good soldiers' as well as 'good actors'. Grant and Mayer (2009) posited that

employees with prosocial and impression management motives, would be drawn to

perform citizenship behaviours as it would aIlow the employee to 'do good' and 'look

good'.

With a desire to help others and improve their own image, impression management can

strengthen the relationship between prosocial motives and affiliative citizenship

behaviours (Grant & Mayer, 2009). Challenging citizenship behaviours could risk an

employee's reputation with their supervisor and co-workers, while affiliativc citizenship

behaviours would alJow the employee to help their organisation and co-worker and yet

ensure their reputation remains intact.

135

Hypothesis 3: Impression management tnDlives will strengthelltht: reiatiollshljJ bt:tl1'el'1l

prosociai motives and the peiformance of afftiiatil'e citizenship behaviours.

Motivation and Outcomes

As mentioned in the first chapter. Organ (1977) conceptualised OCBs as a means of

explaining the lack of relationship between employee attitudes and job performance. As he

explained. employees were constrained by their in role job tasks and they were more likely

to express attitudes, such as job satisfaction. through the performance of extra role

behaviours which they have greater control over. This has resulted in job satisfaction

being the most frequently studied correlate of OCB. which has found substantial support

for a relationship between job satisfaction and OCBs (e.g. Bateman & Organ. 1983;

Motowidlo. 1984; Puffer. 1987; Williams & Anderson. 1991; Organ & Lingle. 1995;

Schappe. 1998). Bateman and Organ (1983) found a significant relationship between job

satisfaction and supervisory ratings of OCBs. While Williams and Anderson ( 199 I) found

that the cognitive component of job satisfaction predicted the performance of OCB-\ and

OCB-O. Smith et al (1983) suggested that individuals who were in a positive mood would

be more likely to behave altruistically; therefore. they believed that some proportion of

OCB performance could be explained by employee job satisfaction. However. the

dominant explanation for the link between OCBs and job satisfaction is social exchange.

as when an employee is satisfied with their job they will reciprocate with the performance

of OCBs (Bateman & Organ. 1983). Most of the studies list job satisfaction as an

antecedent of OCBs. in that job satisfaction predicts the performance of OCBs (Bateman

& Organ. 1983; Williams & Anderson. 1991). However. the performance of citizenship

behaviours could lead to employees feeling satisfied with their job. as they feel content

because they have managed to contribute to their organisation and co-workers. which

could in turn make them valued members of the organisation. Therefore it is hypothesised

that:

136

Hypothesis 4: The peifonnance of helpil/g and voice behaviours he po.\"itil'ely related to

job satisfaction and negatively related to job stress.

If employees feel satisfaction through the performance of citizenship behaviours. it would

be assumed that this relationship would be stronger for employees with prosocial motives.

as they are compelled to contribute to their organisation and co-workers. therehy the

performance of citizenship behaviours would be the fulfilment of this desire. In addition.

studies have found that supervisors tend to respond positively to citizenship behaviours

and believe that it is linked with an employee's overall job performance (Ptxlsakoff el al.

1993; Organ et al. 2(06). The performance of citizenship behaviours may lead

supervisors to believe that the employee is more motivated and committed In Ihe

organisation (Shore. Barksdale & Shore. 1995); which could explain the positive

relationship between acB performance and performance evaluations and managers'

reward allocation (Podsakoff. Whiting. Podsakoff, & Blume. 20(9). The positive

outcomes associated with acBs suggest that employees with impression management

motives are likely to be satisfied with their job, as the performance of DeBs may

contribute towards the obtainment of their goals. Bateman and Organ ( 1983) believed that

when employees were satisfied with their job, they would respond as 'good soldiers' and

would engage in acBs to help co-workers and the organisation. From this, it would be

expected that employees with prosocial motives or impression management motives are

likely to be satisfied with their jobs as their performance of acBs is fulfilling their goal of

contributing to their organisation and co-workers or fulfilling their own personal goals.

Hypothesis 5: OCB motives will moderate the relationship between OCBs (I1Il/job

satisfaction and job stress

Podsakoff et al (2000) believed that an organisation where DeBs were common would

make the organisation a more attractive place to work, allowing them to attract and retain

the best workers. As noted previously, studies examining the outcomes of DeBs have

mainly focused on the positive outcomes for the organisation and its employees. In their

137

meta-analysis, Organ and Ryan (1995) suggested that employees who engage in high

levels of citizenship behaviours may feel overloaded, Since then, studies have started to

acknowledge more of the potential negative implkations uf OeB performance, such as

feeling overloaded. stress. and work-family conflict (Bolino et ai, 2004; Bolino &

Turnley. 2005; Bolino et ai, 2010). Greater job demands are placed on employees. and

they are expected to work longer hours. be more active in organisational life and with the

advent of e-mail and third and fourth generation mobile phones. to be in contact and work

even when away from the office (Hochschild. 1997; Reich. 2001; Felman. 2002; Major,

Klein & Ehrheart. 2002; Brett & Stroh. 2003; Bolino et a\, 2010). With organisations

encouraging employees to be 'good soldiers' there is a danger that they are expected to

engage in high levels of task performance and take on roles outside their official job

description which could contribute to role overload and could make the organisation less

attractive to employees (Bolino et aI, 2010). This suggests that 'job creep' may be

occurring more often in organisations. which Van Dyne and Ellis (2004. p. 184) detine as

the "gradual and informal expansion of role responsibilities where discretionary

contributions (such as OeB) become viewed as in-role obligations by supervisors and

peers". When OeBs are commonplace in an organisation. it can make the lines that

distinguish between in role and citizenship behaviours blurry (Morrison. 1994). The ill

defined nature of in role and extra role behaviours can make them subject to multiple

interpretations which in tum can affect employees' job satisfaction and job stress levels

(Jackson & Schuler. 1985).

The imprecise division between in role and citizenship behaviour may foster the

occurrence of compulsory citizenship behaviours. Spector and Fox (2005) suggested that

the performance of OCBs itself can lead to the occurrence of compulsory citizenship

behaviours. They believed that when an employee voluntarily took on extra tasks. it could

lead to supervisors and co-workers expecting them to continue their performance of these

voluntary behaviours. In addition. the pressure to achieve higher levels of oeBs to remain

competitive may increase the likelihood that managers may use compulsory citizenship

behaviours (Vigoda-Gadot. 2006). When employees feel they are being coerced to

138

perform these 'compulsory' behaviours that they perceive to sit outside of their prescribed

job roles, it may result in higher levels of job stress and burn out, lowcr Icvels of job

satisfaction, and intention to leave the organisation (Vigoda-Gadot 20(7). While,

compulsory citizenship behaviour may increase employec's intention to Ieavc the

organisation, Tepper (2000) highlighted that employees who are targcts of abusive

behaviours may still remain in the organisation because they feel thcy arc powerlcss to

rectify the situation or may be economically depended on the abuser. With the current

economic climate, many employees could be facing compulsory citizenship behaviours.

but unable to leave their organisation, thereby resulting in their dissatisfaction with their

jobs and dysfunctional work outcomes.

Hypothesis 6: Compulsory citizenship will be associated with hiKher fl'I'l'ls o/job stress

and lower levels ofjob satisfaction.

The effects of culture on motivation, performance and outcomes

The literature and the results from study I and study 2 have illustrated that cultural

differences exist in the perception and performance of citizenship behaviours (Moorman

& Blakely, 1995; Francesco & Chen, 2004; Blakely, Srivastava & Moorman, 2(05).

While OCB research has progressed by broadening its scope and f(x;using on the negative

aspects associated with OCB performance, the research examining the cultural differences

is still lagging behind. Bond (1999, p. 3-4) argued that national culture was of the greatest

importance to global organisations: "simply exporting cultural norms is not possible today

without conflict". While Grant and Mayer (2009) have highlighted the effect motivation

has on employees' choice of citizenship behaviour to perform and Bolino et al (2010)

illustrated the consequences of citizenship pressure on employees, both included only

samples from the United States. We cannot be sure if these findings are universal for all

employees and therefore it is crucial that we expand our research to consider the cultural

differences that might arise. Study 2 highlighted that Indonesian participants differ in thcir

conceptualisation of OCBs and 1M motivated behaviours to their western counterparts.

139

This study hopes to extend the work of previous researchers such as Grant and Mayer

(2009), Bolino et al (2010), Vigoda-Gadot (2006,2007) to examine if their findings can he

extended to collectivist Asian employees or if cultural differences are present.

As mentioned previously in the culture chapter, Hofstede ( 1980) presented individualism

collectivism and the other three dimensions of his cultural typology as ditTerences

between countries. rather than individuals. Hui and Triandis (1986) noted that cultures

which have been labelled as collectivist or individualist are simply cultures in which the

majority of individuals have collectivist or individualistic orientations. Traindis and his

colleagues stressed the differences between individualism and collectivism at the national

level and at the individual level (Triandis, Leung. Villareal & Clack. 1985: Triandis.

Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao. & Sinha, 1995). To differentiate between them. he suggested that

when studied at the individual level. individualism and collectivism should be called

idiocentrism and allocentrism, respectively (Triandis et al. 1985; Smith & Bond. 1999).

Currently most research studies now examine individualism and collectivism at the

individual level (Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier. 2002); however. the terms

'idiocentrism' and 'allocentrism' have not come into common usage. Examining

individualism and collectivism at the individual level allows researchers to acknowledge

that while overall trends may exist within a culture towards individualism or collectivism.

variances within a culture do exist (Wasit, 2(03). It is easy to imagine. for example. that

an Indonesian employee who spent three years at university in the United Kingdom may

be more idiocentric. With the increasing diversity within organisations. it is important to

take within country cultural differences into consideration.

A study of individualism and collectivism at the individual level will allow researchers to

gauge the degree to which overall national cultural orientation affects employees at the

individual level. For example. an individualistic employee could be int1uenced by working

in an environment dominated by collectivist co-workers, and if this was the case. we

would expect to see no substantial difference between the responses of individualist or

collectivist employees. However, due to the importance that individualists place on

140

personal rights and freedoms, it is unlikely that they will feel forced to conform to the

norms of others. Therefore, differences in the performance of collectivist and

individualist employees are expected.

Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that collectivists were more likely to perform DeBs

than their individualistic counterparts, which they postulated was due to collectivists

feeling obligated to ensure the welfare of their in group regardless of the cost to

themselves. The sample of this study was taken from a financial services organisation in

the south eastern United States, with Moorman and Blakely measuring individualism and

collectivism as an individual difference. In Moorman and Blakely's (1995) study, it could

be assumed that collectivists are most likely to be a minority in the organisation. as the

United States is known to be a more individualistic nation (Hofstede. 1980). In a country

like Indonesia. where a majority of individuals have a collectivist orientation. it may be

that the dominance of collectivist orientation would lead the propensity for performing

OeBs to be strengthened; this in turn could strengthen the relationship between prosocial

motives and the performance of affiliative and challenging behaviours.

Hypothesis 7: Collectivism will strengthen the relationship bet\1'een OCB motil'es alld the

peifonnance of affiliative and challenging behaviours.

Hui. Yee. and Eastman (1995) found that collectivism was associated with higher levels of

job satisfaction than individualistic employees. Hui and Yee (1999) supported these

previous findings. and in addition found that the link between collectivism and job

satisfaction was stronger within workgroups where co-workers encouraged and helped

each other than in workgroups in which support and collaboration was lacking. This

suggests that the link between collectivism and job satisfaction would be stronger within

collectivist organisations and cultures; therefore a collectivist employee in an Indonesian

organisation is likely to be more satisfied in their job, due to the mutual support and

collaboration associated with collectivist individuals. In addition, it is likely that

collectivist orientations may also affect the types of behaviours an employee prefer to

141

perform. Collectivists are characterised by their desire to maintain group harmony

(Hofstede, I 980b), therefore they are likely to avoid challenging behaviours as they run

the risk of 'rocking the boat' (Grant and Mayer, 2009). Collectivists may prefer helping

behaviours as they are interpersonal and aim support the existing working environment

(Van Dyne et aI, 1995). Individualists, on the other hand may favour challenging

behaviours as they would allow them to set themselves apart from other employees

through suggesting ways to improve existing work process, leading to the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8: Col/ectil'ism will moderate the relationship heIWC'en OCBs and tIll'

outcomes measures; with collectivists respondinx more positil'ely to (i/Jiliatil'c heh(/\'iours

and indil'idualists responding more positively to challenging hehal'iours.

Method

Sample

Participants in this study were sampled from the Indonesian branch of a large multi­

national bank. A response rate was unable to be calculated due to the organisation's desire

to distribute the links to the questionnaire via their own 'gatekeeper', to prevent the

disclosure of employee's e-mail addresses. A total of 186 employees started the

questionnaire. with a total of 141 employees completing the questionnaire, a completion

rate of 75.81 %. The mean age of the sample was 33 years and was made up of 55 male

employees (39%) and 86 female employees (61 %).

Measures

Voice and helping

Voice and helping behaviours were measured using Van Dyne and lePine's (1998) 13

item scale (four items measuring in-role behaviour performance were omitted as they were

not relevant to this study). We replaced "This particular co-worker" in the original

142

wording of the items to 'I' so participants would be rating their own behaviour. Seven of

the items examined employees' helping behaviours with statements like '( help others in

this group learn about the work' and 'I volunteer to do things for this work l:,TfOUp' (a co .96).

Six of the items assessed employees' use of voice behaviours with items such as 'I develop

and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group'. This measure

was found to have a Cronbach's Alpha of .96.

Citi:ellship motives

Citizenship motives were measured using Rioux and Penner's (200 I) 20 item sl:ale ( I ()

items measuring organisational concern were excluded from this study as they were not

relevant to this study, as impression management and prosocial motives were the main

focus of the study). Ten items rated participant's prosocial values behind their

performance of citizenship behaviours with items such as 'because I feel it is important to

help those in need' (a = .92). The rest of the items measure impression management

motives with such items as 'to avoid looking bad in front of others' (a = .93).

Compulsory Citi:enship Behaviour (CCB)

Vigoda-Gadot's (2007) measure ofCCS was used to measure participants' performance

of citizenship behaviour which they felt they were under pressure to perform. The scalc

consisted of5 items, with items such as 'The management in this organisation puts

pressure on employees to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal joh

tasks.' Participants were ask to report the frequency of the behaviour in their work place

on a scale from I (never) to 5 (always). The reliability of this scale was .85.

Job Stress

Motowidlo, Packard and Manning's (1986) four item scale was used to measure

participants' job stress. Participants rated items such as 'My job is extremely stressful' on

a five point scale, ranging from I (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). This scale was

found to have a Cronbach's alpha of .78.

143

Individualism-Collectivism oriellfatioll

Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson and Zapata-Phelan's (2006) scale was used to measure

participants' levels of individualism and collectivism. The scale instructs participants to

'think about the work group to which you currently belong, and have belonged to in the

past' and then respond to the items with their level of agreement. Participants rated their

responses on a 5 point Likert scale (l=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) to itcms

such as 'I preferred to work in those groups rather than working alone'. The Cronbach's

Alpha for this measure was .9 I.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured using three items from the overall satisfaction subscalc

from the Michigan Organisational Assessment questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman,

Jenkins and Klesh, 1979). Respondents were asked to rate their level of agrecment, to

items such as 'All in all, I am satisfied with my job', using a fivc point scale ranging from

I (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The Cronbach's Alpha for this measure was

.66.

Procedure

An online questionnaire was developed which collected participants' responses to their

demographic information, self report of their performance of hclping and voice

behaviours, impression management and prosocial motives, compulsory citizenship

behaviour and finally a measure of collectivism. As this questionnaire was completed hy

Indonesian employees it was translated from English to Indonesian, using a hack

translation process. Once the questionnaire had been translated to Indonesian and hack

into English, it was checked to ensure that the meaning of questions had not been altered.

In addition, similar to study 2, the questionnaire was also read through by native

Indonesian speakers from the University of Nottingham to makc certain the wording was

correct.

144

This questionnaire also asked participants if they were born in the country they were

currently working in. As mentioned in study 2, this was to ensure that the results would

not be distorted by overseas employees, as this study focuses on individual differences of

culture within Indonesian employees. If participants answered yes to the question, the

survey would continue. However, if they answered no, they would be thanked for their

time and the questionnaire would end. Only I participant answered 'no' to the question

and was excluded from the study.

Employees of the multi-national bank were sent an e-mail containing information about

the study, including their rights as a participant, and a link to the online questionnaire. The

e-mail also contained information letting the potential participants know the purpose of

the research, the approximate length of time the questionnaire would take, and that their

responses would remain confidential and anonymous.

Results

Means, standard deviations and correlations for variables appear in Table 7. As expected

a correlation between prosocial motives and helping and voice was found. Impression

management was not correlated with the citizenship behaviours, but was found to be

correlated with prosocial motives and compulsory citizenship behaviours. Also expected,

based on the literature review. job satisfaction was positively correlated with helping.

voice. prosocial motives and collectivism, while negatively correlated with job stress. Job

Stress was found to be negatively correlated with helping. voice and prosocial motives,

while positively correlated with compulsory citizenship behaviours. Finally, collectivism

was found to be positively correlated with the performance of voice and helping

behaviours and prosocial motives.

A hierarchical regression on the data was used to examine the prediction of helping

behaviour by prosocial and impression management motives, and compulsory citizenship

behaviours. To control for the demographic variables, gender, age, and tenure were

145

entered in the first step. In the second step of the multiple regression prosocial motiVl'~,

impression management motives and compulsory citizenship behaviours were added.

These same steps were followed replacing helping as the criterion with voice. Table H

illustrates the R. R2. F and standardised Beta values for the prediction of helping and voice

behaviours.

In the first multiple regression performed with helping as the criterion, the demographic

variables of age. gender and tenure were first entered and accounted for 3Nlr of the

variance. Prosocial motives. impression management motives and CCB were then entered

into the multiple regression and accounted for a further unique 5.g l;( of the variance aner

controlling for demographics (F(3.134)= 2.87, p<O.05). Looking at the individual

standardised beta values. prosocial motives was found to be significant (13=0.26, p<O.O I).

The second multiple regression performed had voice as the criterion with the same

variables inputted. The demographic variables. age. gender and tenure. accounted for

1.5% of the variance. The prosocial motives. impression management motives and

compulsory citizenship behaviour variables significantly accounted for an incremental

5.7% of the variance. (F(3,134)=2.75. p<O.05). Once again prosocial motives variahle was

a significant predictor of voice (see table 8).

146

Table 7 Means, Stantlo.rd Deviotions and Correlations

Variable M SO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I. Helping 5.49 1.21 (.96)

2. Voice 5.48 1.24 .93** (.96)

3. Prosocial 4.75 .76 .24** .24** (.92)

Motives

4. Impression 3.51 l.l5 .07 .06 .38** (.93)

Management

5.CCB 2.90 1.06 .00 .00 .02 .53** (.85)

6. Stress 3.05 0.78 -.21* -.21 * -.22** -.05 .26** (.78)

7. Job Satisfaction 3.79 0.73 .31 ** .36** .21 * -.04 -.28** -.44** (.66)

8. Collectivism 3.66 0.53 .34** .32** .40** .08 -.07 -.14 .26** (.91 )

Note: Internal consistency values (Cronbach's alphas) appear across the diagonal in parentheses

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

147

The results of the correlation found that prosocial motives had a significant relationship

with helping and voice; in addition. the hierarchical multiple regression found that

prosocial motives predicted helping and voice behaviours. thus providing support for the

first hypothesis. The second hypothesis which predicted impression management motives

would be positively related to the performance of affiliative behaviours. however this was

not supported as no significant relationship was found between impression management

and the performance of helping or voice behaviours.

Table 8 Hierarchical regression for motives as predictors of helping alld voice

Helping Voice

B B

Step I

Gender .10 .02

Age -.10 -.07

Tenure .20 .15

R .191 .124

R2 .036 .015

F (3.137) 1.73 0.71

Step 2

Gender .10 .02

Age -.08 -.04

Tenure .19 .14

Prosocial .26 ** .26 ** Impression Management -.08 -.07

CCB .06 .05

R .308 .269

Rl .095 .072

R2 Change .058 .057

F(3,134) 2.87 * 2.75 * * Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

The third hypothesis proposed that impression management motives would strengthen the

relationship between prosocial motives and affiliative behaviours. To investigate this

relationship hierarchical mUltiple regressions analyses were performed. Following Aikins

148

and West (1999) prosocial motives and impression management motives were centred

prior to being entered into the first step of the multiple regression. On step two the

interaction terms were entered. Prosocial motives and impression management variahles in

the first step accounted for 6% of the variables, F(2, 138)=4.37, p<O.O I. The inclusion of

the interaction term of prosocial motives multiplied by impression management did not

account for any additional variance, with an R2 Change of .000, F(3,137)=2.90, pdW3.

providing no support to the third hypothesis (See table 9).

Table 9 Hkrarchical regression for motives as predictors of helping

Helping

Step I

Prosocial

Impression Management

R

R2

F(2. 138)

Step 2

Prosocial

Impression Management

Prosocial x 1M

R

R2

R2 Change

F(3, 137)

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

B

.25 ** -.03

.244

.06

4.37 **

.26**

-.03

.01

.244

.060

.000

2.90*

Hierarchal mUltiple regressions were also performed using the outcome variahles as

criteria. With job satisfaction as the criterion it was found that demographic variables

accounted for 14.4% of the variance, F(3, 137)=7.60, p<O.OO I. Age was found to have a

significant relationship with job satisfaction (see table 10). Helping, prosociall11otivcs,

impression management motives, and CCB accounted for a further unique 16.2Clk of the

variance, F(7,I33)= 8.34, p<O.OOI. Looking at the individual standardised heta values,

149

helping was found to significantly predict job satisfaction (p=.28, p<O.OO I). while CCB

was found to significantly negatively predict job satistaction (p=-.24, p<O.OI). When joh

stressed was used as the criterion variables. the demographic variables accounted for 1.9(#,

of the variance. Helping and the motivation variables accounted for a fUJ1her uni4ue

16.2% of the variance. F(7, 133)= 6.59, p<O.OO I. Helping was found to significantly

negatively predict job stress (~=-.17, p<O.05) and CCB was found to signiticantly predict

job stress (P=.37, p<O.OOI).

The same regressions were performed replacing helping as a predictor with voice

behaviours. Voice and the motivation variables were found to account for 18.7(J,f, of thc

variance injob satisfaction, F(7, 133), p<O.OOI. Voice was found to significantly predict

job satisfaction, while CCB significantly negatively predicted job satisfaction (see table

6.5). In addition, when job stress was used as the criterion variables. voice was found to

significantly negatively predict job stress and CCB significantly predicted job stress (see

table 6.5). These results SuppOJ1 the fourth hypothesis which predicted the performance of

helping and voice behaviours would be positively related to higher levels of job

satisfaction and lower levels of job stress. In addition, these results also provide support to

the sixth hypothesis, which postulated that CCBs would be associated with higher levels

of job stress and lower levels of job satisfaction (see tables 10 and II). In the third stage of

these mUltiple regressions interaction terms between the OCBs and motives were entered.

No support was found for the fifth hypothesis which predicted that the OCB motives

would moderate the relationship between OCBs and job satisfaction and job stress (sec

tables 10 and 11).

150

Table 10 Hierarchical regression for motives and helpillg behaviours as predictors of job satisfaction andjob stress

Job Satisfaction Job Stress

B p Step I

Gender -.02 -.06

Age .35 *** -.08

Tenure .05 -.05

R .378 .136

R2 .143 .019

F(3,137) 7.60 *** .864

Step 2

Gender .001 -.10

Age .37 *** -.09

Tenure -.07 .07

Help .28 *** -.17 * Prosocial .15 -.14

Impression Management .03 -.19

CCB -.24 ** .37 *** R .552 .425

R2 .305 .181

R2 Change .162 .162

F (7,133) 8.34 *** 6.59 *** Step 3

Gender .002 -.11

Age .37 *** -.11

Tenure -.07 .10

Help .27 ** -.13

Prosocial .16 -.16

Impression Management .03 -.18

CCB -.23 ** .39 *** Help x Prosocial .009 -.05

Help x 1M .006 -.09

Help x CCB -.027 -.03

R .553 .441

R2 .306 .195

R2 Change .001 .0\4

F(10, 130) 5.73 *** 3.14 *** * Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the om level

*** Significant at the 0.00 I level

151

Table 11 Hierarchical regression for motives and voice behaviours as predictors ofJob satisfaction and job stress

Job Satisfaction Job Stress

B B

Step I

Gender -.02 -.06

Age .35 *** -.08

Tenure .051 -.05

R .378 .136

R2 .143 .019

F(3,137) 7.60 *** .86

Step 2

Gender .02 -.12

Age .36 *** -.08

Tenure -.06 .07

Voice .32 *** -.17 * Prosocial .15 -.14

Impression Management .04 -.19

CCB -.24 ** .37 *** R .574 .429

R2 .330 .184

R2 Change .187 .165

F (7,133) 9.35 *** 4.28 *** Step 3

Gender .03 -.11

Age .36 *** -.09

Tenure -.05 .08

Voice .34 *** -.16

Prosocial .14 -.15

Impression Management .04 -.16

CCB -.24 ** .38 *** Voice x Prosocial -.01 .06

Voice x 1M -.03 -.13

Voice x CCB .002 -.001

R .575 .441

R2 .331 .194

R2 Change .001 .011

F (10, 130) 6.44 *** 3.14 *** * Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the O.Olleve)

*** Significant at the 0.001 level

152

The final two hypotheses examined the effect of individualism and collectivism on the

variables. The seventh hypothesis postulated that collectivism would strengthen the

relationship between affiliative and challenging behaviours and prosocial motives. The

hierarchal multiple regressions were performed. with helping as the criterion. Once again.

to control for the demographic variables. they were entered in the first step of the

regression. In the second step. the mean centred prosocial motives. impression

management motives. CCB and collectivism were entered. In the third step the mean

centred interaction terms were added. These same steps were followed replacing helping

as the criterion with voice. The variance accounted for by the demographic variahles was

the same as those performed in the first multiple regression performed. In the second step

when the motivational variables and collectivism were added to the regression and

accounted for 12.5% of the variance. F(4, 133)=4.96, p<O.OOt. Looking at the individual

standardised beta values. collectivism was found to be significant (~O.29. p<O.OOI).

illustrating that collectivism predicts the performance of helping behaviours. However.

with the inclusion of collectivism into the multiple regression. prosocial motives was no

longer a significant predictor of the performance of helping behaviours. The regression

was performed with voice as the criterion which found that the prosocial motives.

impression management motives. CCB and collectivism variables accounted for II.Yk of

the variance. F(4,I33)=4.47. p<0.01. Collectivism was found to be a significant predictor

of the performance of voice behaviours (see table t 2). Once again. with the inclusion of

the collectivism variables, prosocial motives were no longer a significant predklor of

voice. To test the seventh hypothesis, interaction terms were created by multiplying

collectivism with the motivational variables. While collectivism was a predictor of helping

and voice, no significant relationship was found between the interaction terms and helping

and voice. providing no support for the hypothesis.

153

Table 12 Hierarchical regression for motives as predictors of helping and voice

Helping Voice

B B

Step I

Gender .\0 .02

Age -. \0 -.07

Tenure .20 .15

R .191 .124

R2 .036 .015

F (3,137) 1.73 0.71

Step 2

Gender .11 .03

Age -.12 -.08

Tenure .18 .13

Prosocial .14 .14

Impression Management -.06 -.05

CCB .06 .06

Collectivism .29*** .27**

R .402 .364

R2 .161 .132

R2 Change .125 .117

F(7,133) 3.66 *** 2.89 **

Step 3

Gender .11 .03

Age -.11 -.07

Tenure .17 .13

Prosocial .15 .15

Impression Management -.08 -.07

CCB .08 .07

Collectivism .28** .27**

Prosocial x Collectivist -.01 -.04

1M x Collectivism .08 .07

CCB x Collectivism -.11 -.09

R .415 .374

R2 .172 .140

R2 Change .011 .008

F(l 0, 130) 2.71 ** 2.12*

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

*** Significant at the 0.00 1 level

154

The final hypothesis predicted that collectivism would moderate the relationship between

the citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction and job stress. with collectivist employees

responding positively to affiliative behaviours and individualists responding positively to

challenging behaviours. To test this hypothesis. two hierarchal multiple regression were

performed using job satisfaction and job stress as criterion. To control for the

demographic variables. they were entered in the first step of the regression. In the second

step. the mean centred help. voice. and collectivism variables were entered. In the third

step the mean centred interaction terms were added. The variance accounted for hy the

demographic variables was the same as the previous mUltiple regressions performed. Help.

voice and collectivism accounted for 13.5% of the variance of job satisfaction.

F(7,133)=8.58, p<O.OOl. Looking at the individual standardised beta values voice was

found to be a significant predictor of job satisfaction (see table 13). With job stress as the

criterion variable no significant relationship between help, voice or collectivism was

found. In the third step of the regression collectivism was found to significantly interact

with helping and voice. Collectivism was found to moderate the relationship between

helping and job satisfaction (see figure 6).

5

4.5 = .S 4 -y

~ .!!i 3.5 -~ ~ 3 = ..., -+- Low Collecti VSIll

'S 2.5 {IJ

r --.... -- High Collcctivsm

.• - 2 ~ ~

1.5

+----------------,----------------,

Low Helping High Helping

Figure 6 Moderating effect of coUectivism on the relationship between helping and job satisfactio"

155

Table 13 Hierarchical regression for collectivism, helping and voice behaviours as predictors of job satisfaction and job stress

Job Satisfaction Job Stress

p p Step 1

Gender -.02 -.06

Age .35 *** -.07

Tenure .05 -.05

R .378 .136

R2 .143 .019

F(3,137) 7.60 *** .864

Step 2

Gender .009 -.07

Age .35 >1<** -.09

Tenure .00 -.01

Help -.18 -.04

Voice .47* -.15

CoIlectivism .12 -.07

R .527 .255

RZ .278 .065

R2 Change .135 .046

F(7,133) 8.58 *** 1.55

Step 3

Gender .008 -.07

Age .37 *** -.13

Tenure -.03 .04

Help -.09 -.18

Voice .38 -.007

Collectivism .10 -.02

Collectivism x Help .44 >I< -.78 ***

Collectivism x Voice -.44 * .71 **

R .551 .380

R2 .303 .145

R2 Change .026 .080

F (\0,130) 7.19*** 2.79 **

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

*** Significant at the 0.001 level

156

The results suggest that collectivist employees would experience higher levels ofjoh

satisfaction the more helping behaviours they perform; while individualistic employees

would experience lower levels of job satisfaction when they inc'Tease their performance of

helping behaviours.

Collectivism was also found to moderate the relationship between the performance of

voice behaviours and job satisfaction (see figure 7). These results suggest that collectivist

employees' job satisfaction is relatively stable whether they arc performing high or low

levels of voice. However, individualistic employees' job satisfaction increased the higher

their performance of voice behaviours.

5

c 4.5 Q

'';: 4 ~ .s .~ 3.5 .... '" V1 ~ 3 Q

-+- Low Collectivism

~

"S 2.5 --... -- High Collectivism

i 2 .• .... '" c:z:: 1.5

+-----------,-------------------- -----

Low Voice High Voice

Figure 7 Moderating effect of collectivism on the reliltionship between voice and job satisfaction

Collectivism was also found to moderate the relatiooship between the citizenship

behaviours and job stress. When collectivist employees engage in higher levels of helping

behaviours their levels of job stress decrease; however individualistic employees' levels of

job stress increase the higher their levels of helping behaviours (see figure 8). Figure 9

illustrates the moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between voice and joh

stress. The results suggest that as collectivist employees increase their performance of

157

voice behaviours their stress levels increase. However. the opposite relationship was founu

in individualistic employees. as they increase their performance of voice behaviours. their

levels of job stress decrease.

5

l 4.5 ~

4 ~ ~ ... ...

CF.J 3.5 ~ Q ...,

3 .... Q

~ Low Collectivsm

~

~ 2.5 --.-- High Collectivsrn . .• ... ca 2 ~

1.5

Low Helping High Helping

Figure 8 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between helping alldjob stress

5

4.5

1.5

I

~ Low Collecti visl11

--+-- High Collectivism

+------------,---------------1

Low Voice High Voice

Figure 9 Moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between voice and job stress

158

Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify if the motivation behind the performance of OCBs wou Id

affect the type of citizenship behaviour performed and the outcomes. In addition, this study

hoped to identify if culture played a role in the motivation, performance and outcomes of

citizenship behaviours. Consistent with the first hypothesis, prosocial motives were found to

predict the performance of helping and voice behaviours. However, no support was found for

the hypothesis which predicted that impression management motives would he positively

related to the performance of affiliative behaviours. This study also wanted to identify if the

findings of Grant and Mayer (2009) would extend to a collectivist sample. They found that

impression management motives strengthened the relationship between prosocial motives and

the performance of affiliative behaviours; however, this study found no evidence to support

their findings. Furthermore, it was found that impression management motives were positively

correlated with prosocial motives and compulsory citizenship behaviours. No relationship was

found between prosocial motives and compulsory citizenship behaviours.

The relationship between organisational citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction and job

stress were also investigated. In support of the fourth hypothesis, it was found that voice and

helping behaviours significantly predicted job satisfaction and negatively predicted job stress.

The fifth hypothesis predicted that the OCB motives would moderate the relationship between

OCBs and job satisfaction and job stress; however, no evidence was found in support of this

relationship. As anticipated. compulsory citizenship behaviours were Ii.>und to be a significant

predictor of job stress and negatively predicted job satisfaction.

The final two hypotheses examined the findings in relation to employt..'Cs· individualist or

collectivist orientation. It was hypothesised that collectivism would strengthen the relationship

between the citizenship behaviours and the underlying motivations. No evidence was found to

support this claim; however. collectivism was found to be a significant predictor of the

performance of helping and voice behaviours. The final hypothesis predicted that collectivism

would moderate the relationship between OCBs and the outcome measures of job satisfaction

and job stress. The results supported this hypothesis as it was found that collectivism did

159

indeed moderate the relationship between helping and voice behaviours and job satisfaction

and job stress.

This study found that prosocial motives predicted the performance of both aftiliative and

challenging behaviours. This finding was expected, as past research had suggested that

individuals with prosocial motives would be driven to engage in citizenship behaviours to help

their fellow co-workers and the organisation (Bateman & Organ. 1983; Organ. 1(88); with

helping behaviours as citizenship behaviours which can directly benefit co-workers and voice

behaviours that can be performed to help the organisation. The study's findings did not provide

support for the assertion that impression management motives would be related to the

performance of affiliative behaviours and in addition would strengthen the relationship

between prosocial motives and the performance of affiliative behaviours, as suggested hy

Grant and Mayer (2009). Impression management motives did not predict the performance of

helping or voice behaviours, despite the fact that past literature had illustrated that impression

management can motivate the performance of citizenship behaviours (Eastman, 1994; Bolino.

1999; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Bolino et ai, 2004). While researchers have acknowledged that

OCBs can be performed for self-serving motives. when Rioux and Penner (2001) were

investigating motives on OCB performance, they found that impression management did not

correlate with any of the five OCB dimensions; however, impression management motives

were found to account for a significant amount of the variance in ratings of sportsmanship.

Impression management is concerned with maintaining a desired image; however, that image

is dependent on the individual. It may be that the relationship between impression management

motives and the performance ofOCBs is dependent on what behaviours the employee's

organisation values. As Rioux and Penner (200 I) suggested, additional research is needed to

understand what role impression management has in the performance of OCBs.

In addition, the results found that prosocial motives were correlated with impression

management motives, suggesting that employees could indeed be 'good soldiers' and 'good

actors' with the aim of doing good to look good. In addition, impression management was

found to be correlated with compulsory citizenship behaviours. It may be that when a

160

supervisor is pressuring an employee to perform certain citizenship behaviours. the employee

comes to view these behaviours as important to the supervisor and therefore useful in their

attainment of their goals. Spector and Fox (2005) stated that " ... when an individual

experiences an OCB-eliciting demand in situations where he or she sees a benetit, the demand

might well be seen as a welcome opportunity" (p.135). No link was found between prosocial

motives and compulsory citizenship behaviours, suggesting that when an employee feels

pressured they are unlikely to feel like giving back to the organisation who they feel is

coercing them.

The performance of helping and voice behaviours were found to predict job satisfaction and

negatively predict job stress. Past literature has found that job satisfaction predicts the

performance of citizenship behaviours (Bateman & Organ. 1983; Smith el al, 19H3; Williams

& Anderson, 1991) and postulated that this relationship was a product of a social exchange

between the organisation and its employees. It was suggested that when an employee felt

satisfied with their job. they would repay the organisation by the performance of citizenship

behaviours (Organ, 1988). However. as postulated by this study. this relationship could also

work in reverse, and that the performance of citizenship behaviours could result in the

employees feeling satisfied in their job. As highlighted by Flynn (2003). employees who

engage in high levels of citizenship behaviours are found to obtain higher levels of social

status from their co-workers. An employee who performs citizenship behaviours may becomc

a valued member of the team and this sense of value could result in the employee experiencing

satisfaction with their job and lower levels of job stress. However. this relationship between

the performance of citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction and stress may be dependent on

how the employee conceptualises the behaviour. The results of this study also found that

compulsory citizenship behaviours significantly predicted job stress and negatively predicted

job satisfaction. These findings suggest that if an employee feels they are under pressure to

perform behaviours that lie outside their job requirements, it is likely they will become

unsatisfied with the situation. It was postulated that OCB motives would strengthen the

relationship between citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction and stress, however, no

evidence was found to support this prediction. This suggests that, excluding compulsory

161

citizenship behaviours, it is the actual performance of the citizenship behaviour that is more

important on the outcome, rather than the motivation behind the performance.

Organisations must be aware of the negative consequences that are associated with compulsory

citizenship behaviours. If an organisation wants to prevent the CCBs, managers should be in

complete agreement with the employees about the boundaries of formal tasks, where in role

behaviours end and extra role behaviours begin. This should be done as part of the formal

contract between the organisation and the employee when they arc hired. These hOllndaries

should not only be made clear to newcomers to an organisation but also to tenured employees.

As mentioned by Spector and Fox (2005), the behaviours which an employee once performed

voluntarily as an extra role task, could lead supervisors and co-workers expecting the

employee to continue performing these behaviours, making them no longer voluntary.

Past research has found differences in the performance of OCBs by individualist and

collectivist employees (Moorman and Blakely, 1995); one of the aims of this study was to

identify if these cultural differences extended to the motivation behind DCB performance, the

choice of citizenship behaviour and the outcomes as a result of the motivation choice. No

evidence of a moderating effect of cultural orientation on the motivation and type of

citizenship behaviour performed was found. However, collectivism was found to predict the

performance of helping and voice behaviours. Moorman and Blakely ( 1995) postulated that

the differences in OCB performance by collectivist employees were due to their feeling

obligated to ensure the welfare of their in group. In addition, when collectivism was added to

the regression, prosocial motives were no longer a significant predictor of voice or helping,

and this suggested that the collectivist employee's feeling of obligation towards their in b'J'OllP,

would go beyond the prosocially motivated employee's need to help co-workers. Perhaps

collectivist employees feel the performance of helping and voice behaviours as a necessity to

ensure the welfare of their in group.

The final hypothesis was supported by the findings of this study. as it found that collectivism

moderated the relationship between citizenship behaviours and the outcome measures. The

results show that collectivist and individualist employees have different reactions to the

162

performance of helping and voice behaviours. When collectivist employees increase their

performance of helping behaviours, they appear to experience higher job satisfaction and lower

levels of stress. However the opposite was true for individualist employees whose stress levels

increased and job satisfaction levels decreased with the increase of helping behaviours. In the

case of voice behaviours, it was found that individualists' levels of job stress decreased and job

satisfaction increased with higher levels of voice behaviours. While the collectivist employees

experienced similar levels of job satisfaction whether performing high or low levels of voice

behaviours, when they performed more voice behaviour they experienced higher levels of job

stress. This suggests that voice and helping behaviours are valut:d differently by collectivist

and individualists. Perhaps, collectivists respond positively to helping behaviours because of

their emphasis on maintaining group harmony (Earley & Gibson, 1998); they engage in these

affiliative behaviours as they focus on maintaining the status quo (Van Dyne et aI, 1995). As

mentioned earlier the performance of voice behaviours could risk an employee's reputation, as

the performance of voice behaviour could damage relationships and create conflict by 'rocking

the boat' through challenging the existing work process (Ashford et aI, 1998; Van Dyne &

lePine. 1998). For a collectivist, the performance of voice behaviours may appear too risky for

them. While for an individualist employee, who is characterised by their independence from in

groups and focusing on obtaining personal goals (Earley & Gibson. 1998), the performance of

voice behaviours may be more appealing, as they aim to improve the existing work process

which in tum may result in the employee being seen as an exceptionally motivated employee.

If an organisation wanted to encourage the performance of voice behaviours to allow thelll to

remain dynamic and flexible (Katz, 1964) within a majority collectivist orientated

organisation, they may have to create an environment in which the collectivist employee feels

safe to perform these behaviours without the fear of risking their in group harmony or their

place within the in group. These findings suggest that while past research has found

differences in the performance of DeBs between individualist and collectivist employees.

these differences may go deeper than just differences in the frequency of performance. This

stresses the importance of further investigation on the effect of culture on organisational

citizenship behaviours.

163

No support was found for the moderating effect of impression management on prosocial

motives and the performance of affiliative behaviours. which was found in the Grant and

Mayer (2009) study. The lack of support for the findings of Grant and Mayer's (2009) study

may be due to differences in the procedure. for example they used a different measure of

helping and used a snowbal1 sampling procedure in their second study. However. the

differences in the finding may be down to differences in the culture of the samples. with Grant

and Mayer's sample coming from the United States and this study's sample coming from

Indonesia. While some cultural effects were found at the individual level. with differences

found in col1ectivist and individualist performance. the overall differences in the findings

between this study and Grant and Mayer's may be due to the fact that the study was perfi1nm'd

in a country that is a majority collectivist country. Hofstede. Bond and Luk ( I 99J) emphasised

that culture related variables can be measured on multiple levels, so identifying what lewl of

analysis is to be used is a major factor for consideration by researchers investigating the effects

of culture. As mentioned in the culture chapter, researchers have to be careful when

investigating culture, so they do not inappropriately cross levels of analysis (Kwantest. Karam.

Kuo & Towson. 2(08); this can occur when culture is measured on a national level and the

cultural values are applied to all individuals of the sample or when results from a study that

measures culture as an individual difference then attempts to generalize the findings (Xl the

culture as a whole. While this study was able to find that collectivist orientation (measured as

an individual difference) was a significant predictor of the performance of helping and voice.

we can only question if the overall findings were a result of the fact that the sample was from

Indonesia. In addition, the measurement of individualism and collectivism as an individual

difference also has to be considered. As mentioned before, Moorman and Blakely (1995) is

frequently cited as an example of differences in the performance of OCBs by individualist and

collectivist employee; these differences were found in a sample from the United States, which

is an individualistic country. We must also consider the effect the overall dominant cultural

orientation has on the individual differences. Does the dominant country's culture affect the

response on the individual level? A future study should contain a sample from two countries

(one country that is dominated by collectivism and one individualistically dominant country)

and then measure individualism and collectivism on the individual level. This would allow

164

researchers to compare the score of collectivists within a dominantly collectivist country with

collectivists based in an individualistic country and identify if the overall national cultural

orientation affects the response on the individual level. For now, researchers must he careful to

acknowledge the level of analysis that is used in cultural research when interpreting the results.

A potential issue within the study is the high correlation between the helping and voice scales,

.93, suggesting that they may not be unique scales. Both scales were constructed by Van Dyne

and LePine (1998); they reported the correlation between their self reported helping and voice

scale at .63, their peer rated scale of voice and help at .78 and finally their supervisor rated

measure of voice and helping at .81. The higher correlation between the self reported measure

of voice and helping in this study may be due to the differences in nationality of the sample,

with Van Dyne and LePine's sample coming from the United States.

This research offers important practical implications for organisations. With the finding that

prosocial motives predict the performance of voice and helping behaviours, managers should

attempt to create a positive working environment where employees feel they are treated fairly;

which in turn could lead to a social exchange relationship between the employee and the

organisation, as they feel they should 'pay back' the fair treatment they receive. This stressed

the avoidance of creating compulsory citizenship behaviours, which can lead to job stress and

lower levels of job satisfaction. Negotiating which tasks are in an employee's formal job role

and then perhaps rewards for extra role behaviours would create an environment in which

employees feel they are treated fairly and rewarded when they go beyond the call of duty.

Organisations must be aware that employees can be 'good soldiers' and 'good actors' at the

same time, therefore, the performance of behaviours that are perceived by managers to be

impression management motives may not always be perceived as being disingenuous.

165

Chapter 7

Discussion

The goal of this thesis was never to reject the past findings of organisational citizenship

behaviour (OCB) research, as meta-analyses of OCB have illustrated considerable support for

this concept (Organ & Ryan, 1997; lePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Hoffman, Blair, Meriac &

Woehr, 2007; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume, 2009). Rather, the goal was to

emphasise a need to broaden the scope of research, and to gain a more complete picture of

OCBs in organisations. As addressed in the literature review chapter, much of the research in

OCBs is based on four basic assumptions and in recent years, some researchers have begun to

question these assumptions (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot.

2006,2(07). The issues regarding the assumptions do bring up questions on the validity of

OCB research, but they also emphasise the narrowing in OCB research that has occurred. The

presumed positive view of citizenship behaviours has meant that much of the research has

ignored any of the potentially negative aspects of OCBs. Therefore, the overall aim of the

thesis was to examine OCB away from the preconceived notions and to attempt to uncover

how employees conceptualise it. The secondary aim was to identify what role culture played in

the performance and outcomes of citizenship behaviours. As discussed in the second chapter,

the early research within psychology was limited by a lack of acknowledgment of the influence

cultural differences may have. While most of the research within psychology has attempted to

catch up and acknowledge the effect cultural related variables may have on psychological

concepts and theories, OCB research is still somewhat lagging behind. As highlighted by

Kwantes, Karam, Kuo and Towson (2008) there has been only a limited recognition on the

effects of culture on OCBs. This is exemplified by culture not being listed as an antecedent of

OCB in the meta-analyses by Podsakoff. MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) and lePine

et al (2002); despite researchers such as Moorman and Blakely (1995) finding differences in

the performance of OCBs by individuals from different cultures. Much of the research on OCB

has been based on Western samples. which may lead us to question if the findings actually

represent the conceptualisation and performance of aCBs by individualistic employees. rather

166

than being representative of all employees' conceptualisations of OCBs. The importance of

identifying the effect of culture on OCB performance has been accelerated by the growing

influence of Asia on the global economy, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF Survey

Online, 2010) predicted that by 2030 Asia's economy would be larger than that of the United

States and the European Union combined.

Utilizing the sequential exploratory strategy of mixed methods, this thesis sought to explore

how employees actually conceptualise OCBs, away from the four basic assumptions. The

findings from the qualitative approach led to the development of two quantitative studies that

expanded on emergent theories. While the findings of the three studies did find some support

for the four basic assumptions, the findings also highlighted the limitations posed by the

assumptions.

Organisational Citizenship Behaviours as extra role behaviours

The first of the four basic assumptions is that organisational citizenship behaviours are eXU'a­

role behaviours. This first assumption comes from Organ's (1988) definition of OCBs as

behaviours that lie outside of an employees prescribed job roles. However. as mentioned

previously, it has come to be accepted that OCBs can be extra-role or in-role behaviours, with

Morrison (1994) stating that it is more important to consider how the employee perceived the

behaviour. One of the theories to emerge from the first study of this thesis took this a step

further by suggesting that it may be more important to consider how both the employee and

their supervisor perceive the OCB, and if these perceptions are congruent or incongruent.

These congruent or incongruent perceptions of OCBs as in-role or extra-role appear to affect

how citizenship behaviours are perceived and also affect the outcomes of the behaviours. The

British participants in the first study provided examples in which OCBs were perceived by

both them and their supervisor as extra-role behaviours, and when this was the case the

behaviours had positive connotations. As both the employee and their supervisor perceived

these behaviours as lying outside the prescribed job roles, it is therefore seen as a sign that the

employee is a 'good solider' in the organisation who is willing to go beyond the call of duty. In

167

these situations. it appears that the employee has a clear understanding of what tasks are

entailed in their job.

In past research. identifying cultural factors that affect the performance of OCBs, the

collectivist employee has often been painted as the quintessential example of a dedicated and

loyal employee. who is always willing to go beyond the call of duty for their organisation,

which they perceived to be their in-group. The mixture of this characterisation of collectivist

employees and study findings had lead researchers to question if organisational citizcnship

behaviours would even exist to these employees, as OCBs would appear to them as required

components of their job role as they ensure the harmony of their in-group (Moorman &

Blakley, 1995). However. the responses of the participants in the first study suggested that this

may not be the actual experience of collectivist employees. Many of the Asian participants

cited examples of incongruent perceptions of OCBs between them and their supervisor. They

indeed felt they were obligated to perform citizenship behaviours, hut not out of a sense of

duty to their in-group, but rather due to perceived pressure from their supervisor. The results of

the first study suggested that it is important to acknowledge that citizenship behaviours can be

perceived as in-role or extra-role, but these perceptions may not be shared by co-workers or the

employee's supervisor, which can affect the conceptualisation and performance of the

behaviours. This perhaps could be due to Western employees having a clear idea of their

prescribed job roles, while Asian employees may be uncertain of what is actually entailed in

their job. In addition, the results of the first study emphasised the need to investigate further

the cultural differences in the conceptualisation and performance of OCBs. As mentioned

earlier. it may be that previous quantitative questionnaires addressing Asian employees'

perception of OCBs as in-role or extra-role may have captured their view that the behaviours

were required but missed the reason behind these perceptions.

oeBs are performed with non self-serving motives

There are many examples of OCBs performed by 'good soldiers' arising from positive

attitudes or a supportive working environment. British participants in study I, provided

168

examples of a more cyclical social exchange relationship with their organisation. Somc

employees performed OCBs out of a sense of good will to the organisation and some of the

participants' organisations responded to the performance ofOCB with praise and reward.

Results from the third study found that the Indonesian employees' prosocial motives predicted

the performance of affiliative and challenging behaviours; in addition. these citizcnship

behaviours also predicted job satisfaction and negatively predicted job stress. These results

suggest that Organ's (1988) conceptualisation ofOCBs as a response to employees' attitudes is

indeed a motivation behind the performance of OCBs. However. as many researchers currently

acknowledge. it is not the only motivational force behind the performance of OCBs. Many

researchers have highlighted an overlap between citizenship behaviours and impression

management motivated behaviours and that OCBs can be motivated by impression

management tactics (Eastman, 1994; Bolino, 1999; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Bolino et a\, 20(4).

In these cases the employee is thought of as a 'good actor' who attempts to control the image

others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995). As noted from the responses of

participants in study I and evidence from the second study, the performance of OCBs can be

associated with rewards and increased social status. In addition, the first and second study

suggests that employees are also able to distinguish when a co-worker is performing OCBs

with prosocial motives versus performing OCBs with impression management motives. As in

the first study both Asian and British participants provided examples in which they believed

that a co-worker was attempting to appear as a good citizen in the organisation hut was only

performing the behaviour with the intention of looking good, highlighting that employees arc

aware that fellow employees can be 'good actors' who perfonn OeBs with the intention of

appearing as 'good soldiers'. Often impression management behaviours are characterised as

devious and underhanded or at its worst, as pseudo citizenship behaviours. While their

performance can be disingenuous. they can also be used with a more positive and less

underhanded purpose. Participants from the first study also cited examples in which their

performance of OCBs was intertwined with impression management motives. In these cases,

citizenship behaviours were used to display their ski11s and abilities to their supervisor or

ingratiate themselves with their supervisor to prevent future negative outcomes. Participants

may be aware of the benefits to their co-workers and organisation that can be gained through

169

the performance of citizenship behaviours and realise that 'doing good' in the organisation can

also make them 'look good'. To some extent this was supported by the third study, as prosocial

motives were found to be correlated with impression management motives. Bolino (1999) and

Grant and Mayer (2009) have suggested that it is most likely that employees' performance of

citizenship behaviours are likely to be a mixture of prosocial and impression management

motives.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the performance of organisational citizenship behaviours

can also be a response to perceived pressure from co-workers or the employee's supervisor.

The Asian participants in study I provided examples of occasions in which they felt they were

pressured by their supervisor to perform citizenship behaviours and believed that refusing to

perform these behaviours could potentially lead to negative outcomes, thereby making

compulsory citizenship behaviours another potential motive behind the performance of OeBs.

However, while the participants of study I alluded to impression management and compulsory

citizenship behaviours as reasons behind OCB performance, the final study found that

impression management and ceBs did not predict the performance of helping or voice

behaviours. This suggests that the relationship between these alternative motives and

organisational citizenship behaviours may be more complex than the relationship between

prosocial motives and OCBs.

The performance of OCBs ultimately benefits the employee

Organ (1988) postulated that the performance of DCBs creates a positive working environment

for employees. This seems to be a logical conclusion, considering the links between joh

satisfaction and the performance of organisational citizenship behaviours. As mentioned

earlier, the performance of helping and voice behaviours was found to predict job satisfaction

and negatively predict job stress in the final study. This could be due to the high social status

that can be gained by high performances of acBs (Flynn, 2003) or that the employees feel

satisfied as a result of contributing to their organisation and work groups. Also, British

participants from study 1 cited examples of employees being rewarded for the performance of

170

OCBs. as it represented going beyond the call of duty for the organisation. However. as

highlighted by Bolino et al (2004). organisations may have to be cautious in situations where

OeBs appear to flourish as there are potential negative outcomes that could arise for

employees. Asian participants from the first study expressed their dissatisfaction with

situations in which they felt they were forced to perform citizenship behaviours. They felt they

were unable to refuse their supervisors and were helpless due to a lack of control over these

'extra role' behaviours. The results of the final study confirmed the potential negative

consequences of compulsory citizenship behaviours. as they were found to predict joh stress

and negatively predicted job satisfaction. However. prosocial motives and impression

management motives were not found to predict job satisfaction or job stress. Perhaps,

excluding compulsory citizenship behaviours. motives may not have a strong influence on the

outcomes of OCB performance and instead. the choice of behaviour to perform has a stronger

influence on the outcomes for employees. However. the motives behind OCB performance

appear to have a strong effect on the co-workers who observe the performance of citizenship

behaviours. The first study highlighted that the performance of OCBs can result in co-workers

feeling motivated and inspired by their performance. However. the responses of some

participants also illustrated that the performance of OCBs perceived to be motivated by

impression management can result in distrust. a reduction in motivation and discordant teams.

These findings were followed up in the second study. which found differences in perceived

outcomes of organisational citizenship scenarios and impression management scenarios.

Organisational citizenship behaviours were perceived to have a more positive outcome than

impression management behaviours; the OCB scenarios were rated as having a great deal of

benefit to the performer. their co-workers and the organisation's performance. The second

study also found differences in these ratings by countries. While the ratings of the outcomes of

OCB scenarios by the British and Indonesian participants were quite similar. they differed

however on their ratings of impression management scenarios. It was found that the

Indonesian participants rated the impression management scenarios as having more of an effect

on organisational performance than the British participants. The British participants also rated

OCBs as having a great deal of effect on other employees. while rating impression

management as not having a great deal of effect on other employees. The gap between the

171

ratings of these scenarios was much smaller in the ratings made by the Indonesian participants.

Based on the findings of the first study, which found that the Asian participants tended to use

impression management as a form of ingratiation to protect themselves from potential negative

outcomes. it may be because of this ingratiation tactic that they are more approving of the use

of impression management tactics than their British counterparts. The same effect was

expected to be found between the collectivist and individualist participants; however, it was

found that collectivists rated the effect of impression management and OCB scenarios on other

employees with greater difference than the individualistic employees. This unexpected finding

may be due to the fact that the division of participants as collectivist and individualist was

between two countries, suggesting that perhaps nationality was affecting the ratings of the

collectivist and individualists. The different reaction to the OCB and impression management

scenarios may be due to how the participants perceived impression management tactics. As

mentioned earlier, impression management motivated behaviours can be viewed as

disingenuous. However. they may also be disliked by other employees because they feci

threatened by the blatant display of the employee's ski11s and abilities, which may place

pressure on the employee to increase their own performance of OCBs or OCB like behaviours.

The final study examined collectivism and individualism within one country. to identify if

differences in performance between individualists and collectivists could be observed as within

culture differences. While collectivism was not found to moderate the relationship between

motivation and the performance of voice or helping behaviours, it was found to moderate the

relationship between the citizenship behaviours and the outcome measures. Collectivist

employees appear to respond positively to the performance of helping behaviours, while

responding negatively to the performance of voice behaviours. Past research has suggested that

employees with impression management motives may avoid the performance of voice

behaviours as it may risk their reputation (Grant and Mayer. 2(09). However. the avoidance. or

at the very least displeasure. of performing voice behaviours may also affect collectivist

employees. as they fear it may upset the status quo. In addition. collectivists may fear

suggesting ways to improve organisational performance to their supervisors, as it could

suggest that their superior was unaware of the issue. Individualists. on the other hand. had

172

higher levels of job satisfaction as their performance of voice behaviours increased, and lower

levels of job satisfaction as their performance of helping behaviours increased. Individualists

are characterised by a preoccupation with the obtainment of their own personal goals and with

that in mind, the performance of helping behaviours, may seem like a waste of their ti me and

energy, especially if it takes them way from working towards their goals. The performance of

voice may be viewed by individualistic Indonesian employees as behaviours that make them

stand out of the crowd and aid them with achieving their own goals, thereby, making them

happier employees for performing them. It must also be remembered that these findings were

found within a sample of Indonesian employees; this highlights that even within a majority

collectivist country, individualist and collectivist employees can respond in vastly different

ways to the performance of various types of OCBs. leading to positive outcomes for some and

negative outcomes for others.

oeBs facilitate effective organisational functioning

Bateman and Organ ( 1983) believed that the performance of OCB was essential for the

effective functioning of organisations. Indeed, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) postulated that

OCBs "support the organisational. social and psychological environment in which the

technical core must function" (p.73) which in tum encouraged more effective functioning.

However. they also stated that the relationship between the performance of OCBs and

organisational performance is, "typically logical and conceptual rather than empirical"

(Borman & Motowidlo. 1993. p.88). While this thesis did not investigate the effect of OeBs

on objective measures of organisational performance, the results did suggest ways in which the

performance of OCBs may facilitate as well as damage organisational performance. Evidence

from the first and second study of the thesis suggests that when a co-worker's perfonnance of

OCBs are perceived to be genuine, it can lead to greater cooperation and harmonious and

motivated teams. However. when the co-worker is perceived to have performed impression

management motivated behaviours it can lead to negative outcomes through the creation of

distrust amongst team members. In addition, this thesis, especially in the third study, illustrated

the dangers associated with the performance of compulsory citizenship behaviours, which were

173

found to predict joh stress and negatively predict joh satisfaction. In timcs of cconomil'

uncertainty, employees are likely to remain in an organisation even if thcy pen:civc that thc~

arc being treated unfairly, which could result in employces retaliating with countcrprodIK·ti\l'

or deviant work behaviours (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Fox, Spector & Milcs. 2(){)11

Finally, while the debate regarding the effect of OCBs on organisational performancc

continues, it must be remembered that the performance ofOCBs docs rcquirc thc employcc's

time and energy and can take them away from their required joh task, which in turn clluld

hamper organisational performance.

Contributions to the literature

As mentioned at the start of the chapter, the aim of this thesis was to move away from thl' Ii lUI

basic assumptions of OCBs and embrace a more complcte view of OCBs. The rcsult" of the

three studies has emphasised some of the aspects that arc missing from the literaturc. Changl"

to the definition of organisational citizenship behaviours will not mend the issuc!o. that bl'C thc

research area and research cannot just concentrate simply on identifying ncw 'Ulten'dent ...

Instead, as highlighted by the results of this thesis, research should instead focus Oil how ()( 'Ih

are actually experienced, The findings have emphasised and furthered Morrison's ( 1994)

assertion of the importance of acknowledging the differences in perception ofO(,Bs as in- or

extra-role behaviours as these differences in perceptions have a strong influcncc on the

behaviour's conceptualisation, performance and outcome. While OC8 research has

acknowledged the variety of motives that can drive OCB performance, there has becn litth.'

attention paid to the effects ofthese motives. The results from the three studies havc illu!o.trlllcd

that the motives do have an effect on organisational performance and on the employees of the

organisation. Finally, the findings have also emphasised that OCBs arc not always thc saintly

behaviours that Organ (1988) originally conceptualised; the studies have highlighted that till'

performance of OCBs can have both positive and negative implications. Ovcmll. thc the~i" ha~

progressed the organisational citizenship behaviour literature by presenting a more full and

rounded picture of OCBs in organisations.

174

The thesis has also contributed to the OeB literature by advancing the understandin!! of the

relationship between culture and oeBs. The findings have highlighted that the cultural

differences in oeBs are not just a matter of differences in the frelJuency of performance h)

Asian and Western employees. The results of the three studies illustrate that the l'ultural

differences effect the conceptualisation, motivation. and performance and can result ill

different outcomes for the employees. The first study found that Asian employees

conceptualised OeBs differently than their Western counterparts. often viewing (X'Bs as

forced components of their job. behaviours that would not be rewarded and refusing \0 perforJ11

them would result in negative outcomes for themselves. The second study found that

Indonesian employees appeared to view OCBs and impression management and their effects as

more similar than their British counterparts, which was suggested was perhaps due to A!-.ian

employees using impression management behaviours as a means to prevent future negative

outcomes rather than for career progression purposes. In addition. the third study has

highlighted that these cultural differences not only exist between cultures hut a\so exists within

cultures. The individualist and collectivist Indonesian employees responded dilTl'rently \0 the

performance of affiliative and challenging behaviours. despite working in the same

organisation. These findings are especially important with the advent of multinational

organisations and also within OCB and occupational psychology research. as it is 110 IOIl!!er a

matter of saying that management techniques may not be transferred from one country to

another. they may not be applicable to different groups of employees within the same work

environment.

Strengths and Limitations

As mentioned earlier in this chapter. the aim of this thesis was to identify how employel.·'

conceptualised OeBs and in addition. to address the role culture plays in these

conceptualisations. As highlighted by Kwantes et al (2008) and Hofstede. Bond and Luk

(1993) the choice of which level of analysis to used is critical in cultural research. 'Inc tiN

study of this thesis allowed for the initial exploration of any cultural differences that might he

present in the conceptualisation ofOCBs. Here. nationality was used as a proxy for culture.

175

as it was assumed that the responses of the British participants reflected the per~pl'di\C of

individualistic employees, and the Asian participants reflected a l'OlIectivi).t oricntatioll.

However, as mentioned in the chapter discussing cultuml issucs, a collcctivi~t or

individualistic country is simply a country in which the majority of pcopIc havc a l'O\lcl'lIvi .. t

or individualistic orientation (Hui & Triandis, 1986). With diffcrcncc). found hctwccn thc

responses of the British and Asian participants in the first study, the se~:ond study of thc thl'''I''

attempted to address the cultural differences by comparing country Icvel resptlllsl'S with

individualism and collectivism measured as an individual difference. While diffcrl'lll'l'~ Wl'rl'

found between the British and Indonesian employees, there were only limited tindings that

suggested differences between the collectivist and individualist responses. Thesl' rl'sults l'ould

suggest that only differences between countrics exist and that there are very limited difti.:rclll'l"

between the individualist and collectivist conceptualisation of organisational citi/cllship

behaviours, However, due to the small sample size. rather than having British collectivists and

individualists compared with Indonesian collectivists and individualists, the study l'Olllp.lrl'd

the responses of collectivist and individualist participants regardless of their country of ori)!in.

The final study focused on just Indonesian employees. measuring individualism and

collectivism at the individual level. thereby allowing identification of any within country

cultural differences,

Overall, this thesis has investigated culture as a national difference, an individual dini.:rcn~~c

between countries and finally an individual difference within a single country; howcvcr a

number of issues regarding the investigation of culture still remain. One of thesc issues is thc

measurement of individualism and collectivism. as the results of these measures in thc 'it'contl

and third study found that a number of participants scored towards the middle of thc 'il'alc.

Participants were divided into individualist and collectivist groups using a cut off point at the

50th percentile; however, this does mean that a number of the participants were doscr to till'

median but were labeJled as collectivist or individualist. In an ideal situation the sample ~i/c

would be large enough to only include participants who scored in the top and bottolll 4uartilc~.

In addition. there is a possibility that despite all the various sampling techniqucs, studies Illay

still be missing responses from the most individualistic employees. As discusscd cm'licr,

176

individualists are more concerned with the obtainment of their own personal goab and phll'l'

their own needs ahead of the needs of others. It is unlikely therefore that a highly

individualistic employee would respond to an appeal for participants to take part in a ,tudy. '"

in the participant information sheet, it would stress participants' confidentiality and anon~lllity.

It may be that unless their supervisor is aware that they are making the enilrt to partil·ipatl·.

they would see no real reason to take part. However, collectivist employees Illay sec takin).!

part in research as a means of helping their organisation and in group operate more cnkientl y.

thereby making their effort worthwhile.

Another limitation of this study was the use of self report measures in the tinal study. AItIHlU).!h

it is logical to collect self report measures of collectivism. job satisfaction. joh stn:ss (lr

motives for GCB performance, however, the ratings of performance of citizenship hchaviours

are often provided by supervisors or peers. Some researchers have lTiticised the usc of sl'lf

report measures of OCBs. However. lePine et al (20)2) have advocated that rcsl'afchers

should use theory and logic to decide on the source of OCB ratings. Yandl'nhcrg. Lalll'c anll

Taylor (2004) highlighted that reports of OCB performance are often hiased. In addition. as

highlighted by participants in the first study. supervisors may not always have the opportunity

to directly observe an employee's performance ofOCBs. Also. lIies. fulmer. Spitzmuller and

Johnson (20)9) found that the self ratings of acBs may be an accurate measure of citi/enship

behaviours that may be unobservable or difficult to be observed by others. Finally. a nurnhcr (If

other studies have also used self reported measures of OCBs (Dineen, Lewicki & Tomlinson.

2006; Ilies. Scott, & Judge, 2006; Bolino. Turnley. Gilstrap & Suazo. 2(10).

Future Studies

With the dominance of research identifying antecedence or motives of hl'lping hchaviolJl'.

perhaps future research should identify which OCBs are most likely to facilitate organisational

functioning. which behaviours benefit employees the most and which arc most likely to GIllSI.'

negative outcomes for the organisation. Furthermore. a future study should also identify if any

of these relationships are moderated by cultural related variables. extending the finllings of the

177

final study. The results of this thesis have illustrated that there arc indecd culturalllifkrl'lll'l"

in not just the performance but also the conceptualisation of organisational citi/l'mhip

behaviours. A larger sample size would allow a multi level comparison of l:UIt Ufl,'. hy

comparing, for example British collectivists and individualists with Indonesian colk,,:tivi,t and

individualist employees. This is especially important with the increasingly diverse work forn',

that are common in many organisations, as illustrated in study 2, as 32.H'k of the pcopk that

responded to the request for participants in the British organisation were not horn in thl' l Jnitl'd

Kingdom. In addition, examining OCBs with a multi level model approach would allow for a

greater understanding of the impact cultural values have on the perception and pcrfoflllillH:C of

OCBs. For example, a future study could expand on the findings of study 3, which found that

collectivism moderated the relationship between citizenship behaviours and outcomes in

Indonesian employees. If this was investigated on a multi level model, it could be discovered

whether similar findings could be found in a majority individualistic country, ,Uld identify If

the findings are unique to individualistic and collectivist employees in a collectivist wuntry or

experienced by all individualist and collectivist employees.

Future studies are also needed to examine the outcomes of impression management Illolin" •• "

seen from this thesis, impression management motivated DeBs can be performed for a varit·ty

of reasons, from career progression to protection from future negati ve outcomes. More

research is needed to understand under what conditions impression management motives re,ult

in the performance of genuine OCBs or pseudo OCBs. Finally, as mentioned at the sHirt of thi'

chapter, OCB research needs to be broadened to investigate both the positive and Ilegutive

aspects of citizenship behaviours. One negative aspect of OCBs that needs more attention is

that of compulsory citizenship behaviours due to the potential damage they could l'<lIIse 10

employees and the organisation. A future study could examine the source of CCBs, perhaps

the CCB from an employee's co-worker or supervisor would produce different response, to the

pressure. The final study found that impression management and compulsory citizenship

behaviour were correlated, and another avenue of research could examine if CCBs were

intertwined with impression management motives would lessen the effect on joh stress and joh

satisfaction. If an employee perceives the behaviours they are under pressure to perform can

178

improve their chance of achieving their personal goals would they he more willing to perform

these behaviours?

Practical Implications

Organisations have to consider the fact that they may he managing a multi cultural worldilrl'l'

with different cultural orientations. even if their employees were all born in the same l'llUnlry.

One employee who defines his job narrowly may be working alongside an employee who

defines his job roles more broadly. As noted by Kwantes et al (2(X)8) this difference in

perception of citizenship behaviours as being in role or extra role differences could affect a

wide range of aspects within the organisation, such as performance appraisals, reward

allocations which in tum can affect employees' perceptions of justice, job satisfaction and

effect employee withdrawal, and intention to leave. Research has found that there are ro~itiVl'

connotations and outcomes from the performance of organisational citizenship behavillur~:

they have been found to predict job satisfaction and lower job stress. In addition. co-worker'

may be inspired by employees who are 'good soldiers' and be motivated to tllllow their

example. However, before an organisation attempts to foster the perfonnunee of ()(,l:h hy an)

means possible they have to be aware of the possible negative outcomes that can result from

the performance of OCBs. Therefore, if an organisation wants to foster the performance of

OCBs and limit any potential outcomes, they should proceed with caution. Firstly,

organisations should decide which types of behaviours they value in their employees. An

organisation should also establish with their employee what their job role entails. estahlishing

explicitly which behaviours are a required aspect of the job and which behaviours lie outsi4.k'

of their job role. By establishing this, it should prevent the rise of compulsory citizenship

behaviours. an issue faced by the Asian participants in the first study. In addition.

organisations may want to consider acknowledging the performance of OCBs; this can he in

the form of simple praise to actual financial rewards. This may help maintain a social exchan~e

relationship between the organisation and its employees. Organisations also need to consider

the type of OCBs they want to encourage: for example, if teamwork plays an important

component in the functioning of the organisation, they may prefer to encourage the

179

performance of helping behaviours to ensure c(xlperation and efkctive t~'amv.or", On thl' (lther

hand. an organisation may want to ensure they remain dynamic and Ikxihk in till' lacl' (II

increasing competition; in this case. they may want to encourage the pcrformann' 01 \Oln'

behaviours as a means of improving the work prncess, As noled in thc re~ull\ of thc Ihll'll

study. it appears that the performance of these behaviours hy collectivist and individllal i'tll'

employees can produce vastly different outcomes, For col\cctivistcl11pIIlYl'l'~' who appl.'ar III

experience stress in relation to the performance of voice behaviours, organisatiolls lIlay h'l\c til

work to foster the performance of these behaviours, This wuld he done hy rcfral1ling \ oil'(' :I'

behaviours that help the organisation. by stressing the importance of thcsc hcha\'iours and thaI

suggesting new ways to operate. or issues with the current work process would not he

detrimental to their job. Organisations must also be aware that while imprl's~ion managcmcnl

tactics are common place in most organisations (Bolino and Turnley. 1(1)9), they l'an he

perceived as disingenuous by others employees which in lurn can have lll'gatiVl' OUll'OIllC' '"l

the organisation. Therefore, organisations may want to discourage their pcrforlllanl'l' hy

creating a working environment that limits their usc. As mentioned in thl' lin,t ~llIdy thi, cOllld

be achieved through smaller tearn sizes or objective measures of pcrform;ull.'l' 'I1ll'Sl' lI:w

suggestions of ways to foster the performance of OCBs while attcmpting to limit any ncgatin'

effects. stresses the caution organisations must pay when encouraging their pcrformanl'l'.

especially as the performance of OCBs can affect so many aspects of organis:ltionilllili:.

Conclusion

Organisational citizenship behaviours were presented as an employee's response to a s(X'ial

exchange relationship with their organisation, as extra role behaviours that Wl're pt,'rfol'lm:d hy

the employee out of a sense of good will. However, the results of Ihis thesis have highlightnl

that the conceptualisation and performance of OCBs is far more complex than thi~ original

conceptualisation. OCB research has experienced vast amounts of change since ils

conceptualisation almost 30 years ago, there have been changes to its definitions, questions

over its basic assumptions and cultural differences have been identified. However, thesc

contradictions within the OCB literature, such as the negative implications of its pcrform:lnCl',

180

do not mean we should dismiss the construct. Citizenship hehavioul's ~till playa \alllahk Illk

within organisational success, especially in changing and compctitiVl' till1l"; OI"!!ani ... atioll'

need employees who will go beyond the call of duty for thcm. Furthermore. re,earch into

OCBs need to expand our understanding of the effect of culture, as it is not ... imply a malin III

difference in frequencies in performance; there are differences in conceptuali ... atioll ....

performance and outcomes. As globalisation and the advanccment of tedlllology nlllt in lie,.

organisations need to be aware that their employees who work next 10 cach othcr may h,l\l'

vastly different generalised belief systems and these differences can create clll'cts that haw the

potential to seep into every aspect of organisational life. While thc research area of (X 'B ...

continues to grow, research should not seek to develop a heller definition or discover nJllrl'

antecedents, but instead it should focus on how it is conceptualised oy those who l'xpcricnn.' it.

181

References

Adler, N. 1. (\ 997). International Dimellsioll.l' of Orglllli:atiOlwl nelll/I'io,. (3nlcd l'O, l. Bll,I(\1l"

PWS-Kent Publishing.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regressioll: T('stillg tllld illlt",/JI'('lillg illll'IW'liOlI.\,

Newbury Park, London: Sage.

AlIen, T. D., & Rush, M. C (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship hchavior lin

performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experimcnt. 1011,.,,(/10/

Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260.

Anastasi, A., & S., u. (1997). Psychological testing (7th cd.). New York: Ml'Millian,

Andrews, M. C, & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Impression management hy association:

Construction and validation of a scale. loumal oj VocatiOlwlllt'IWl'ior, 58( II. 142·

161.

Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I.. Cooper, C, & Burnes, B. (E.ds.). (2()()5).

Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behal'iour i" the Workp/(J(,(' , Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited.

Ashford, S., Rothbard, N., Piderit, S .. & Dutton. J. (1998). Out on a Limb: The Role of

Context and Impression Management in Selling Gender-Equity Issues, Ad",i,,;stmtil'('

Science Quarterly, 43,23-57.

182

Bachrach, D. G., Powell, 8. C, Bendoly. E., & Richey. R. G. (2006). Organi/.;lIiollal

citizenship behavior and performance evaluations: Exploring the impact of ta"'''

interdependence. 10urnal of Applied PsycholoXY. I.) I (I). 193-20 I.

Bachrach, D. G., Powell, 8. C., Collins, B. J.. & Richey, R. G. (2(){)6). Effects of task

interdependence on the relationship between helping hchavior ami group

performance. Journal of Applied PsycholoRY. 9/(6), 1396-1405.

Banki. S. (2010). Is a Good Deed Constructive Regardless of Intent? Organization Citilcn ... hip

Behavior, Motive, and Group Outcomes. Small GroliP Re.H'arch. 4/(3), .l"i4-.n:'i.

Banville, D .. Desrosiers, P., & Genet-Volet, Y. (2000). Translating questionn,lircs and

inventories using a cross-cultural translation technique. louma/ of Te(lching in

Physical Education. 19,374-387.

Barnard, C I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Univenity

Press.

Barrett, G. V., & Bass, 8. M. (1976). Cross-Cultural Issues in Industrial and Organizational

Psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial {/1/(1 Org{lIIi:.aliOfI<l/

Psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally College Publishing.

Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative

negotiation. 10umal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74.345 -359.

183

Barsness, Z. I.. Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. D. L. (200). Motivation and opportunity: Thl'

role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network l:l'lltrality ill

impression management. Academy of ManllRemt'llt journal, 4NO). 401-419.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (\ 983). Job-Satisfaction and the Good Soldier - The

Relationship Between Affect and Employee Citizenship. A('(u/eIllY /~l Mal/l/gclI//'1l1

Journal, 26(4),587-595.

BBe. (2007). 'I felt hunted and alone' - lawyer. Retrieved 26 June. 2007. from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/llhi/6241076.stm

Becker. T. E. (1992). Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are they Distinctions Worth Making"

Academy of Management journal. 35, 232-244.

Beins, B. e. (2009). Research methods: A tool for life (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & 8amn.

Bergeron, D. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: GlxxI

citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Rel'iew. 32, 1078-1(1)).

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., SegalJ, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cro,\'s-cultllml

psychology: Research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

184

Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship hchaviors: The din.'CI

and moderating influence of goal orientation. Jourl/al (!f R('tailil1~, SO. 16) I XO.

Blakely. G. L.. Andrews. M. c.. & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating cfkcts of l'quity

sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and PSycllOlo~y, 20(2).259-27 3.

Blakely. G. L.. Srivastava. A .. & Moorman. R. H. (2005). The effects of nationality. work mit­

centrality. and work locus of control on role definitions of OCB. Jourl/ol (If

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(1). 103-117.

Blau. P. (1964). £tclwnge and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bolino. M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Glx.xi soldiers or good 'Il"t()r~·.'

Academy of Management Review, 24( 1),82-98.

Bolino. M. c.. & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing

employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executil'e', 17( 3). 6()-71.

Bolino, M. c.. & Turnley. W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The

relationship between individual initiative and role overload, joh stress, and work­

family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.

185

Bolino, M. C, Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship hchavior and the

creation of social capital in organizations. Academy (}{MallC/glollli'/II RIT;I'II·. 2 7( 4).

505-522.

Bolino. M. C. Turnley. W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship ulllk'r

pressure: What's a "good soldier" to do? Journal (if Org(I1I;~at;(}I/(/1 Bdwl';or, 3/(0).

835-855.

Bolino, M. C, Turnley. W.H .• Niehoff. B.P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining

prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Nt'SOl/rn'

Management Review, 14. 229-246.

Bolino. M. Coo Varela. J. A., Bande, 8.. & Turnley. W. H. (2006). The impact of impression­

management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship hchavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3). 281-297.

Bond, 1. T.. Galinsky. E .. & Swanberg. 1. E. (1997). The 1997 National Study (l1't"I' ClleU/gillg

Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Bond. M. A. (1999). Gender. race. and class in organizational contexts. IProceedings Paper I.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3).327-355.

Bond. M. H .. & Smith. P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology.

Annual Rel'iew of Psychology, 47. 205-235.

186

Bord, R. 1. (1976). Impact of Imputed Deviant Identities in Structuring Evaluations and

Reactions. Sociometry, 39(2), \08-116.

Borman, W. C, & Motowidlo, S. J. (\993). Expanding the criterion domain to indudl'

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & A. W. C. Borman (Ells.),

Personnel selection in organi::.ations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Josscy- Bass.

Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression managcllll'nt

processes in organizations. Organiz.ational Behavior and Hllman Decision PI'OCt'.HI'I.

69( I ), 9-30.

Breakwell. G. M., Hammond, S., Fife-Schaw, C. R., & Smith. 1. A. (2006). R('.I'eor!''' Mt'fhod\

in Psychology (3rd edn.) London: Sage.

Brett, J. M .. & Stroh. L. K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do il"

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 1). 67-78.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal (!f emss­

Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.

Brockner.1. (1992). Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors. CaIUi",,;a Mllnag/'tIIl'lIt

Review, 34. 9-28.

187

Buchanan, T. (2000). Potential of the Internet for personality research. In M. H. Birnhaulll

(Ed.). Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 121--140). San Diego. CA:

Academic Press.

Bulkeley, W. M. (1992. November 2, 2nd November ). Study finds hidden costs of computing.

Wall Street Journal.

Cammann. c.. Fichman. M .. Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Work, University of Michigan.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation hy the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56, 81-105.

Cardona, P .. Lawrence. B. S., & Bentler. P. M. (2004). The innuence of social and work

exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. GrollI' & Organ;:,lII;m/

Monogemem. 29(2).219-247.

Chan. D. K. S. (1994). Colindex: A refinement of three collectivism measures .. In U. Kim. H.

C. Triandis. C. Kagitcibasi. S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.). Indi\'l'dua/islII ami

collectivism: Theory. methods and applications (pp. 200-210 ). Thousand Oaks. C A:

Sage.

Charmaz. K. (\ 995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith. R. Harre & L. van Langenhove ( Eds. I.

Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.

188

Chen. C C. Chen. X. P .. & Meindl. J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered'! The

I:ultural effel:\s of individualism-collectivism. Academy (!f Mll1lagt'lIIl'II' RI'I'il'll',

23(2). 285-304.

Chen. G. M .. & Chung. 1. (\ 994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational

communication. Communication Quarterly. 42.93- \05.

Chen. Y. 1.. Lin. C C. Tung. Y. C. & Ko. Y. T. (2008). Associations of organizHtionHI ju~ti\.·e

and ingratiation with Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The beneficiary

perspective. Social Behavior and Personality. 36(3).289-301.

Chen. Y. Y.. & Fang. W. C (2008). The moderating effect of impression management tm the

organizational politics-performance relationship. }ournlll (!lBu.I'ine.l's Ethics. 7t}(3).

263-277.

Chinese Cultural Connection. (1987). Chinese Values and the Search for Culture Free

Dimensions of Culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. J N(2). 143-164.

Choi. J. N. (2007 ). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work

environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal (!f

Organi~ational Behavior. 28.467-484.

Clugston. M .. Howell. J. P .. & Dorfman. P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict

multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management. 26( 1).5-30,

189

Cohen-Charash. Y .. & Spector. P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta­

analysis. Orgalli:.ational Behal'ior and Human Decision Process('s, ~o(2). nX-321.

Cohen. A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational

citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of VOCCltiollal Bdllll'i(lr,

69(1), 105-1 18.

Cohen, A., & Avrahami. A. (2006). The relationship between individualism. collectivism. the

perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organisational citizenship

behaviour. Service Illdustries Jounwl, 26(8),889-901.

Cohen, S. G .. & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research

from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Managemellf, 23(~). 239 290.

Colquitt. J. A .. Noe. R. A .. & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and

consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55( 1 ). X3-1 09.

Conlin, M. (2002. May 13). The big squeeze on workers: Is there a risk to wringing more from

a smaller staff? . Business Week, 96.

Coolican, H. (2004). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (4th ed.). London:

Hodder & Stoughton.

190

Cox, T. H., Lobel. S. A, & Mcleod, P. L. (1991). Effects of Ethnic-Group Cultural­

Differences on Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task. Amell'm.\' (!(

Mallagement JOlll11al. 34(4),827-847.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed

citizenship hehaviour: Reciprocity or 'it's my job'? Journal of Managemelll Studit's.

-II( 1).85-106.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qua/itatil'e inquiry and research design: Choosing am()ng./iI'l'

traditiolls. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative. and Mixed Mt,tllOd.\·

Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Creswell. J. W .. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods t~"

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell. J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M .• & Hanson. W. (2003). Advanced mixed

methods research designs .. In A Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook 011

mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks.

CA Sage Publications.

Cronbach. L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16(3),297-334.

191

Cropanzano. R.. & Mitchell. M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of Managemellt, 31(6). 874-900.

De Waele. l-P .. & Harre. R. ( 1979). Autobiography as a psychological method. In G. P.

Gin"burg (Ed.). Emerging strategies ill social psychological research (pp. 145-225).

Chichester: Wiley.

Deluga. R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and

organizational citizenship behavior. Joul7lal of Applied Social Psychology, 25. 1652·

1669.

Denzin. N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods .

. New York: McGraw-HilL

Denzin, N. K .. & Lincoln. Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative R('searcl/

(2nd ed .. pp. 1-28). London: Sage Publications.

Di Cesare, J. a. S .. G. (2003). Do All Carrots Look The Same? Examining the Impact of

Culture on Employee Motivation. Management Research News, 26( I ).

Dineen. B. R.. Lewicki. R. J.. & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and

behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior.

jounwl (~f Applied Psychology, 91, 622-()35.

192

Earley. P. C. ( 19X9). S(X'ial loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and

the People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-582.

Earley. P. C ( I'N~). Ea~t Meet~ West Meets Mideast - Further Explorations of Collectivistic

and Indi,iduali .. tic Work Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2),319-348.

Earley. P. C. & Gih .. on. C B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism­

colb:ti,i .. m: 100 years solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3).

Earley. P. C. & Mosakowski. E. (1995). Experimental international management research. In

B. J. Punnell & O. Sbenkar (Eds.). Handbook of internatiollal MallaRemellt Research

(PP. X)-114). London: Blackwell Publishers.

Eastman. K. K. ( 1994). In the Eyes of the Beholder - An Attributional Approach to Ingratiation

and Organi/<ltional Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5).

1379-1391.

Eby. L. T.. & Dobbins. G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in tearns: An individual and

group-le\"eJ analysis. Journal ofOrgani:.atiollal Behavior. 18(3).275-295.

Elliot. A. J.. Chirkm. V. I.. Kim. Y. M., & Sheldon. K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of

avoidance (relati\'e to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science. 12(6).505-

510.

193

Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational

justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journa/ (1/

OrRalli~lIti(}llll/ Behlll'ior, 27( I), 1-17.

Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In

H. C. Triandis. M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Hum/hook (~(illdll.\"tri{// alld

orRani~atiolla/ psych%RY (2 ed., Vol. 4, pp. 559-6(8). Palo Alto. C A: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Erez, M. (\ 997). Culture Based Model of Work Motivation. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds. l.

New Perspectil'ies ollillfemationll/ and Organi:atiolla/ Psycho/ORY (PP. 193-242).

San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative-Analysis of Goal Setting Strategies Across

Cultures. lournal of Applied Psychology, 72(4),658-665.

Fadil, P. A., Williams. R.J .• Limpaphayom. W. and Small, C. (2005). Equity or Equality? A

conceptual Examination of the Influence of Individualism/Collectivism on the Cross­

Cultural Application of Equity Theory. Cross Cultural Management, 12(4).

Fandt, P. M., & Ferris. G. R. (1990). The Management of Information and Impressions - When

Employees Behave Opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Hllmall Dt'C;S;OI/

Processes, 45(1). 140-158.

194

Farh, 1. L., & Cheng, B. S. ( 2000). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: A

cultural analysis. Indigenous PsycllOlogical Research ill Chinese Societies. 13. 127-

180.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. c., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of just icc

and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Admillistratil'I' Scil'lI/'l'

Quarterly. 42(3), 421-444.

Farh, 1. L., Podsakoff, P. M .. & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational

citizenship behavior: Leaderfairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Joun/a! of'

Management. 16, 705-721.

Feldman, D. C. (2002). Managers' propensity to work longer hours: A multilevel analysis.

Humwl Resource Management Review. 12,339-357.

Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics

and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J.

Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organiz.ational perspective (pp. 231252).

Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A, Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate

Influence and the Performance Evaluation Process - Test of a Model. Orgalli::.ariolla/

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(\), IO 1-135.

195

Fink. E .. & Monge, P. (1985). An exploration of Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Progrt'.I'.\· ill

Communication Sciences, 6.167-197.

Fisher. 1. D .• Nadler, A.. & Whitcheralagna. S. ( 1982). Recipient Reactions to Aid.

Ps:\'choloRical Bulletill, 9 J (I). 27-54.

Flynn. F. 1. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The etfects of generosity and

frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy (!l

ManaRemellt Joumal, 46(5). 539-553.

Flynn. G. (1996). Back lash. Personnel Journal. 75.58-69.

Fox, S., Spector. P. E., & Miles. D. (2001). Counterproductive work Behavior (CWB) in

response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator

tests for autonomy and emotions. Joumal o/Vocational Belull'ior, 59(3). 2QI-309.

Francesco, A. M., & Chen. Z. X. (2004). Its moderating effects on the relationship between

organizational commitment and employee performance in China. Group &

Organi:.ation Management, 29(4), 425-441.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K, & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal

initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity of two German samples. Journal

0/ Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139-161.

196

Galperin, B. L. (2003). Can Workplace Deviance be Constructive? In A. Sagie, S. Stashcvsky

& M. Koslowsky (Eds.), Misbehaviour and Dysfunctional Attitudes in Or~{/niz.lI1i(}ns

(pp. 154 -170). New York: Pal grave Macmillan.

Galperin, B. L., & Burke, R. J. (2006). Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and

workplace destructive and constructive deviance: an exploratory study. [nt{'/"Ili/tio//a!

Journal of Human Resource Management, J 7(2), 331-347.

Gelfand, M. 1., Erez, M .. & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Anllua!

Review of PsycholoK)', 58,479-514.

George, 1. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

Gilbert, D. T., & Silvera, D. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Socia!

Psychology, 70. 678-{)91.

Glaser, B., & Strauss. A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G .• & Strauss. A. L. (1965). Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). Time for Dying. Chicago: Aldine.

197

Gomez. C. Kirkman. B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism and in­

group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members.

Academy of' M{/I1{/~emellT Jouma/, 43( 6). 1097-1 \06.

Goncalo.1. A.. & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity.

Or~{/lIi-;,ati{)lla/ Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100( 1).96-109.

Gosling. S. D .• Vazire. S .• Srivastava. S .• & John. O. P. (2004). Should we trust Web-based

studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires.

American Psychologist, 59,93-104.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American

SocioloRica/ Review, 25. 161-178.

Gouldner. A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A PreliminaryStatement. American

Sociological Review 25. 161-178.

Graen. G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnettc

(Ed.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Grafen. A. (1990). Biological Signals as Handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144(4),

517-546.

198

Graham, 1. W. ( 1986). Principled organizational dissent: A Theoretical Essay Resellrch ill

Orglllli:ariO/wl Behavior. 8, I-52.

Graham. 1. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee

Respomibilities & Rights Journal. 4, 249-270.

Graham, 1. W., & W, 0. D. (1993). Commitment and the covenantal organization. Jour/lal (!I"

Managerial Issues. 5,483-502.

Grant. A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and

Impression Management Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship

Behaviors. Joumal (~r Applied Psycholog)·. 94(4),900-912.

Greene, 1. C, CaraceIIi, V. 1.. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for

mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. J I,

255-274.

Guba. E .• & Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic

inquiry. Educational Communications and Technology Journal. 30(4),232-252.

Guba. E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm

dialog (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park, CA Sage.

199

Gulati. U. C. (1992). The Foundations of Rapid Economic-Growth - The Case of the 4 Tigers.

Americall journal (~f Economics alld Sociolo8Y, 5/(2). 161-172.

Gundlach. M .• Zivnuska. S .. & Stoner. 1. (2006). Understanding the relationship between

individualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social

identity theory and the social relations model. Humall Rt'latioll.\', 59( 12). 100,,-1 h32.

Haines, V. Y .• & Taggar. S. (2006). Antecedents of team reward attitude. Group f)mulllics­

Theory Research ana Practice. 10(3). 194-205.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Bowler. W. M .• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Organizational

Concern. Prosocial Values. or Impression Management? How Supervisors Atlrihute

Motives to Organizational Citizenship Behavior. journal of Applied Sociul

Psychology, 40(6),1450-1489.

Ham. 1., & Vonk, R. (2011). Impressions of impression management: Evidence of spontaneous

suspicion of ulterior motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2).

466-471.

Hanson. W .• Creswell. 1. W .• Plano Clark. V .• Petska. K.. & Creswell. J. D. (2005). Mixed

Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology Journal of Cou/I.\'l·lillg

Psychology 52(2). 224-235.

200

Haworth. C. L.. & Levy. P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality heliefs in the

prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal (!l Vocatiollal Behul'ior.

59( 1).64-75.

Hobday. M. (1995). Innovation in East-Asia - Diversity and Development. Techl/m'/ltioll,

J 5(2). 55-63.

Hochschi ld. A. R. (1997), The time bind: When work becomes home and 110111(' hecollles work.

New York: Metropolitan.

Hoffman. B. 1., Blair, C. A., Meriac. J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion

domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal (~l Applied Psychology,

92(2),555-566.

Hofstede, O. (1980a). Culture's consequences: international difference.\' ill work rl'latni

values. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.

Hofstede, O. (I980b). 'Motivation. Leadership, and Organization: do American theories apply

abroad?' Organizational Dynamics 9( I), 42-63.

Hofstede, O. (1985). The Interaction Between National and Organizational Value-Systems.

Journal of Management Studies. 22(4),347-357.

201

Hofstede, G. (1997). The Archimedes effect. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), WorkillR at the illll'l.1(ICe o{

cultures: 18 lives in social science (pp. 47-61). London: Routledge.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). Confucius and Economic Growth: New Insights into

Culture's Consequences. Organi::ational Dynamics, 15,5-21.

Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk. C. L. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational

cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organiz.atioll Studies, N,

483-503.

Hogan, R. T., & Emler, N. P. (1978). The biases in contemporary social psychology. Social

Research 45, 478-534.

Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to research methods ill psychology Harlow.

England: Prentice Hall.

Hui, c., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational

citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. loumal (l Applied

Psychology, 85(5), 822-828.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural

researchers. Journal a/Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2).225-248.

202

Hui, C. H .. & Yee, C. (1994). The Shortened Individualism-Collectivism Scale - Its

Relationship to Demographic and Work-Related Variables. Journal oIRe.\'('arch ill

Personality, 28(4),409-424.

Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1999). The impact of psychological collectivism and workgroup

atmosphere on Chinese employees' job satisfaction. Applied Ps"c/wlog"-{/II

International Re\'iew-P.\·ycllOloRie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 48(2), 175-1 S5.

Hui, C. H., Yee, c., & Eastman. K. L. (\ 995). The Relationship between Individualism--­

Collectivism and Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 44(3), 276-2S2.

ligen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in t<xlay's organizations. In D.

R. ligen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: ImplicatiollS

for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hies, R., Fulmer. I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship

behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94.

945-959.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A, & Judge, T. A (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and

experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy I!t"

Management Journal, 49, 561-575.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

203

IMF Survey Online C:!O 10. May 12) Asia In the World Economy: Asia's Importance Growing

in Global Economy. Retrieved 2nd January, 2011. from

http://www.imf.org/extemaVpubs/ftlsurvey/so/2010/cartl51210a.htm

International Monetary Fund (2010). Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and Pac(lic: Lt'{/(lillg

the Glohal RecOI·ery. Rebalancingfor the Medium Term

Jackson, C. L., Colquitt. 1. A.. Wesson. M. 1., & Zapata-Phelan. C. P. (2006). Psychological

collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance.

journal (?f Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884-899.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of resean:h on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organi:ational Behal'ior and

Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24.602-611.

Johns, G., & Xie, J. L. (1998). Perceptions of absence from work: People's Republic of China

versus Canada. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4),515-530.

Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of

motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals' reputations, helpful

behaviors, and raters' reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 808-

815.

204

Johnson. R. 8.. & Onwuegbuzle. A. 1. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research

Paradigm Who~e Time has come. Edllcational Researcher. 33(7). 14-26.

Joireman. 1., Kamdar, D .. Daniels. D .. & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It

depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a

short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. JOIIl'llal (If Applied

Psychology. 91(6), 1307-1320.

Jones. E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In

1. Suls (Ed.). PsycllOlogicai penpectives onlhe self (Vol. Vol. I. pp. pp. 231-262).

Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz. R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. JOIIl'llal (It'

Management. 20( I ), 43-65.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson. D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics

across human resource situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6). 1293-

1315.

Kamdar. D .• McAllister. D. 1.. & Turban, D. B. (2006). "All in a day's work": How follower

individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91(4),841-855.

Karambayya. R. (1989). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing

and satisfying units have better 'citizens.' York University. Working Paper.

205

Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behal'ioral Science, 9, 131 ~

146.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology oforgani-:.ations. New York: Wilcy.

Keith, K. D. (Ed.). (2011). Cross~Cllltliral Psychology: Contemporary Themes and

Perspectil'es. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizcnship

behaviors. JOllmal of Management. 28(5).629-648.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. I. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance

to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness.

Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 730-757.

Kirkman. B. L.. & Shapiro. D. L. (2000). Understanding why team members won't share - An

examination of factors related to employee receptivity to team-based rewards. Small

Group Research, 31(2), 175-209.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and

organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of

employee resistance. Academy of Management JOllmal. 44(3), 557-569.

206

Kline, P. (2000). Handhook 4 Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-National Research as an Analytic Strategy: American Sociological

Association. 1987 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review 52(6), 7U-

731.

Kroeber. A. L.. & Kluckhohn. C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and

Definitions. Cambridge. MA: Peabody Museum.

Kwantes. C. T.. Karam. C. M., Kuo. B. C. H .. & Towson, S. (2008). Culture's influence on the

perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 32(3). 229-243.

Lalwani. A. K.. Shrum. L. 1., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Motivated Response Styles: The Role of

Cultural Values. Regulatory Focus. and Self-Consciousness in Socially Desirable

Responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96(4), 870-882.

Lam. S. S. K., Hui. c.. & Law. K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing

perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples.

Joumal of Applied Psychology, 84(4),594-601.

Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck. J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational

justice and employee work outcomes: a cross-national study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23( 1), 1-18.

207

Lammers. C. 1.. & Hickson. D. J. (1979). Orgalli:atiollal Alike and Unlike. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Langdridge. D .. & Hagger-Johnson. G. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods alld /Jaw

Analvsis in Psychology (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Leary. M. R.. & Kowalski. R. M. (1990). Impression Management - A Literature Review and

2-Component Mode\. Psychological Bulletin, J 07(1), 34-47.

Lee. A. Y .. Aaker. J. L.. & Gardner. W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct se\f­

construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. journall!f Personality

and Social Psychology, 78(6). 1122-1134.

Lefkowitz. J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance

ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. joumal (if Oc('upllfiollal mill

Organizational Psychology. 73(1),67-85.

Lenway. S .. & Murtha. T. P. (1994). The State as Strategiest in International Business

Research. journal of International Business Studies. 25,513-535.

LePine. J. A.. Erez, A., & Johnson. D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. joul'IIlll l!f

Applied Psychology. 87( 1), 52-65.

208

Leung, K.. Au, Y. F.. Fernandezdols. J. M .. & [wawaki, S. (1992). Preferences for methods of

conflict processing in 2 collectivist cultures. International Journal (~r PsycllO/O!{\',

27(2). 195-209.

Li, W. X., & Wan. W. W. (2007). A demographic study on citizenship behavior as in-rolc

orientation. Personality and Individual DUferences, 42(2). 225-234.

Likert, R. (1932). A tcchnique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives (if Psych%X), NO.

Lukes, S. (1973). indil'idualism. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

MacKenzie, S. B.. Podsakoff. P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior

and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons'

performance. Orgalli:ational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50. 123-150.

Mahoney. J .• & Pandian. J. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of

strategic management. Strategic Finance, 13,363-380.

Major. V. S., Klein. K. 1., & Ehrhart. M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family,

and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427-436.

Markus, H. R.. & Kitayama. S. (1991). Culture and the self - implications for cognition.

emotion. and motivation. Psychological Review. 98(2).224-253.

209

Massie, 1.. & Luytjes.l (1972). Management in all international contest. New York.: Harper

& Row.

McAllister. D. 1.. Kamdar. D .. Morrison. E. W., & Turban. D. B. (2007). Disentangling role

perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion. instrumentality. and efticacy

relate to helping and taking charge. journal of Applied PsycllOloR,v. 92. 1200 1211.

McNeely. B. L.. & Meglino. B. M. (1994). The Role of Dispositional and Situational

Antecedents in Prosocial Organizational-Behavior - an Examination of the Intended

Beneficiaries of Prosocial Behavior. journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6). H36-H44.

Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard. M. A. (2004). Considering rational selfinterest as a disposition:

Organizational implications of other orientation. journal of Applied Psychology. H9,

946-959.

Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The

transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlic (Eds.),

Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 135-164).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Meyer, 1. P., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational

commitment: Some methodological conditions. journal of Applied Psychology. 69.

372-378.

210

Moon, H., Van Dyne, L., & Wrobel, K. (2005). The circumplex model and the future of

organizational citizenship research. In D. Turpinseed (Ed.), A Ham/hook Oil

Orgalli:ational Citi:enship Behavior: A Review of 'Good Soldia' Actil'ity ill

Organi:ations. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors - Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employce Citizcnship.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism Collectivism as an Individual

Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal I!f

Organizational Behavior. 16(2), 127-142.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational

support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizati(mal

citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3),351-357.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and

organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsihilities lind

Rights Journal, 6, 209-225.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenShip behavior: The

importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Managemelll Journal. 37,

1543-1567.

211

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace

change. Academy (?f Management Journal, 42,403-419.

Morse, 1. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.

Nursing Research. 40,120-123.

Motowidlo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and personal sensitivity,!

Academy of Management Journal, 27, 910-915.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, 1. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational Stress - Its Causes

and Consequences for Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 7/(4). () I M-

629.

Nagel, T. (1986). The I'iewfrom nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nahapiet, 1., & Ghoshal. S. (\ 998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

Near, 1. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1987). Whistle-blowers in organizations: Dissidents or reformers'!

. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 321-368.

Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping

behavior in work groups - A multilevel analysis. Group & Organi-:.atioll

Management. 30(5),514-540.

212

Niehoff, B. P .. & Moorman. R. H. (1993). justice as a Mediator of the Relationship Between

Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy oj"

Managemelll journal. 36(3),527-556.

O'Reilly, C, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior. journall~f Applied Psychology. 71,492-499.

Omoto. A. M .• & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligaion - Motivation,

longevity of service, and perceived attitude - change among AIDS Volunteers.

journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68(4), 671-686.

Onwuegbuzie. A., & Leech, N. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance

of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. Internatiollal

journal lif Social Research Methodology. 8(5), 375-387.

Organ, D. W. (1977). A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Cause­

Performance Hypothesis. Academy of Management Review. 2,46-53.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Orgalli::.ational Citi::.ellship behavior: The good soldier syndrome ..

Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (\990). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Research in Organi::.atiollal Behavior. 12. 43-72.

213

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. HUll/un

Peliormallce, 10. 85-97.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive Versus Affective Determinants of

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74( I), 157-1 M.

Organ, D. W., & Lingle, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behaviour. The JOllrnal of Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citi:'e1I.I'hip

behm'ior: Its nature. antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel PsycholtWY, 4~(4), 775-

802.

Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular

reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist,

17,776-778.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. 1., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

214

Oyserman. 0 .. Coon. H. M .. & Kemmelmeier. M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

Bulletin. J 28( I ). 3-72.

Paldam, M. (2003). Economic freedom and the success of the Asian tigers: an essay on

controversy. European jemmal of Political Economy, 19(3),453-477.

Pandey, 1. (1981 J. Ingratiation as a social behavior. In 1. Pandey (Ed.), Per.l'pectil't'.I' on

psycholog\, (Vol. (Vol 108) pp. 221-225). New Delhi: Concept.

Parker, I. (1994). Qualitative Research. In P. Banister, E. Burman. l. Parker, M. Taylor & c.

Tindall (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Parkes. L. P .. Bochner. S., & Schneider. S. K. (200 I). Person-organisation fit across cultures:

An empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psycholo!-O'-all

Intemational Ro'iew-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, SO( 1),81-108.

Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Patton, M. Q., French. B., & Perrone, V. (1976). Does accountability count without teac/wl'

support? An assessment of the Kalamazoo Public schools accountability systemfmm

the perspective of teachers . . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Minnesota

Center for Social Research.

215

Pavlov. J. P. ( 1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An /m'esti8atioll of the Physi%8ica/ Actidt.\' (Iltlle

Cerehral Cortex. London: Oxford University Press.

Pearce. C. L.. & Herbik, P. A (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: Thc

effects of team leadership. team commitment. perceived team support, and team size.

Journal (}f Socia/ Psychology. 144(3), 293-310.

Pearce, 1. L.. & Gregersen. H. B. ( 1991 ). Task Interdependence and Extrarole Behavior - a

Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility. Journal of Applied P.I'ydlOlogv,

76(6),838-844.

Penner, L. A, Dovidio, J. F .. Piliavin, 1. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior:

Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.

Penner, L. A, Midili, A. R.. & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and

social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior.

Human Peifonnance, 10(2), 111-131.

Perlow, L. A (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a

high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 328-357.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and

Organizational-Level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A

Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1),122-141.

216

Podsakoff. P. M .. Ahearne. M .. & MacKenzie. S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship

behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. journal of Applil'd

Psychology. 82(2). 262-270.

Podsakoff. P. M .. & Mackenzie. S. B. (1994). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales

Unit Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research. 31(3), 3S 1-363.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie. S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors

and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for

future research .. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research ill Personnel lind

Human Resources Management (Vol. Vol. 11, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie. S. 8., Moorman, R. H.. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction. and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly. I, 107-142.

Podsakoff. P. M., MacKenzie. S. 8., Paine. J. B .• & Bachrach. D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. journal of Management, 26(3). S 13-563.

Pond. S. B.. Nacoste, R. W .. Mohr. M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997). The measurement of

organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much? journal of Applied

Social PsycllOlogy, 27( 17). 1527-1544.

217

Potter. J. (1997). Discourse Analysis as a Way of Analysing Naturally Occurring Talk. In D.

Si Iverman (Ed.). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 144-160).

London: Sage Publications.

Potter, J. (1998). Qualitative and discourse analysis. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.),

Comprehellsil'e Clinical Psychology: Volume 3. Oxford: Pergamon,

Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior. noncompliant behavior and work performance among

commission salespeople. joumal of Applied Psychology, 72.615-621.

Pye, L. W. (1997). Introduction: The Elusive Concept of Culture and the Vivid Reality of

Personality. Political Psychology. 18(2).241-254.

Ramamoorthy. N., & Carroll. S. 1. (\ 998). Individualism/collectivism orientations and

reactions toward alternative human resource management practices. Human

Relatio1ls. 51(5).571-588.

Ramamoorthy, N .. & Rood. P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: A test

of the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations. Humall

Relations, 55(9). 1071-1096.

Ramamoorthy, N., & Rood, P. C. (2004). Individualism/collectivism, perceived task

interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: A test of

the main and moderating effects. Human Relations, 57(3), 347-366.

218

Ramamoorthy, N .. Kulkarni. S. P., Gupta. A, & Flood, P. c. (2007). Individualism­

collectivism orientation and employee attitudes: A comparison of employees from the

high-technology sector in India and Ireland. journal of International Mallagl'fllellf,

13(2), 1 H7-203.

Raulin, M. L., & Graziano, A M. (1994). Quasi-experiments and correlational studies. In A

M. Colman (Ed.), Companion encyclopaedia of psychology (Vol. 2). London:

Routledge.

Redding, S. G. (1990). The Spirit ofChinRse Capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Reich, R. B. (2001). Thefuture (}f success: Working and living in the new economy. New

York: Knopf.

Rhodes, S. D., Bowie, D. A, & Hergenrather, K. C. (2003). Collecting behavioural data using

the world wide web: considerations for researchers. journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health 57, 68-73.

Richardson, P. a. D., D. Keith. (2005). How to Create a High-performance team. [Journall.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 16(3).

Riemer, H., & Shavitt, S. (2011). Impression management in survey responding: Easier for

collectivists or individualists? journal of Consumer Psychology. 21(2). 157-168.

219

Riggio. R. E. (2003). 1111 rocillctioll to Illdllstria/JOrgalli::.atiollal PsycholoRY. Upper Saddle

River: Prentice Hall.

Rioux. S. M .. & Penner. L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A

motivational analysis. journal oj Applied Psychology, 86(6). 1306-1314.

Rizzo. J. R .. House. R. 1.. & Lirtzman. S. L (1970). Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex

Organizations. Administratil'e Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-162.

Robert. C. Lee. W. C .. & Chan. K. Y. (2006). An empirical analysis of measurement

equivalence with the indcol measure of individualism and collectivism: Implications

for valid cross-cultural inference. Pers01me/ Psychology, 59(1),65-99.

Roberts. K.. & Boyacigiller. N. (l984). Cross-National Organizational Research: the Grasp of

Blind Men. Research in Organi::ational Behavior, 6,423-475.

Robinson. S. L.. & O'leary-Kelly. A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of

work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Mallagemellt

journal. 41(6).658-672.

RogIer, L. H. (1999). Methodological sources of cultural insensitivity in mental health

research. America1l Psychologist. 54.424-433.

220

Rosenfeld. P .. Giacalone. R. A .. & Riordan. C. A. (1994). Impression Management Theory and

Di\"Cr~ity - Lessons for Organizational Behvior. American Behal'ioral Scielllist.

37(5).60\-604.

Rosenfeld. P. R .. Giacalone. R. A .. & Riordan. C. A. (1995). impression ManalWI1U'lIt ill

Orgalli::atiolls: T/u'ory. Measurement, and Practice . . New York: Routledge.

Rousseau. Y .. Aubc. C .. & Savoie. A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors - A review and an

integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5). 540-570.

Salamon. S. D .. & Deutsch. Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: an evolutionary psychological

perspective. Journal (Jf Orgalli:ationa/ Behal'ior, 27(2), 185-199.

Salancik. G., & Pfeffer. 1. (1978). A social infonnation processing approach to job attitudes

and task design. Admi"istrati\'e Science Quarterly, 23. 224-253.

Sandelowski. M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing

Science. 8(3). 27-37.

Schaller, M., & Crandall. C. S. (Eds.). (2004). The Psychological Foundations of Culture.

Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

221

Schappe. S. P. (199X). The influence of job satisfaction. organizational commitment, and

fairnes:-. perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of

Psychology. 132(:'1. 277-290.

Schlenker. B. R. (1980). ImpressionmGnagement: The self-concept. social identity, and

inTerperso1lai relatio1ls Monterey. CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker. B. R .. & Weigold. M. F. ( 1992). Interpersonal Processes InvovIing Impression

Regulation and Management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168.

Schnake. M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research

agenda H,wum Relatio1ls. 44. 735-759.

Schnake, M. E .. & Dumler. M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in

organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal oj Occupational and

Orgalli:.ational P.\ychology, 76, 283-301.

Schor. J. B. (1991). Global Equity and Environmental Crisis - An Argument for Reducing

Working Hours in the North. World Development, 19(1),73-84.

Sechrest. L.. & Sidana. S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?

EvaluaTion and Program Planning, 18,77-87.

222

Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, 1. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). Human Behal'iour in

Global Perspective: An /1l1roduction to Cross Culrural P.lycholog\'. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Shaw, 1. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdependence and preference for group

work: Main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group

members. Journal of Mallagement. 26(2), 259-279.

Shepperd, 1. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1991). Behavioral Other-Enhancement - Strategically

Obscuring the Link Between Performance and Evaluation. Journal of PersOIllIlity lind

Social Psychology. 60( I), 79-88.

Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and

Contemporary Applications. Boston: Pearson Education.

Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee

commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal. 3R. 1593-1615.

Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration offieldwork and survey methods. American Journal (~r

Sociology. 73, 1335-1359.

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a Theory of Role Accuumulation. American Sociological

Review. 39(4),567-578.

223

Silverthorne, C. P. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross-cultural pcrspeetil'/,. New

York:NY: New York University Press.

Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: Avoiding

the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. journal or IllIerlllltioll{/l BU.lilll'.I.1

Studies, 32(3), 555-574.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior - Its

Nature and Antecedents. journal of Applied Psychology, 6X(4), 653-663.

Smith, 1. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R.

Harre & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London:

Sage.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social psychology across culture.I'. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors*. journal

of Management Studies, 44(6), 883-909.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. journal of Personality alld Social

Psychology, 30,526-537.

224

Snyder, M. (1987). Puhlic appearallces, private realities: The p.\ychology (!t se(flllollilorillg.

New York: W. H. Freeman.

Sosik,1. 1., & lung, D. I. (2002). Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic

and individualistic cultures. journal (if Social Psyc/wlog\'. 1.J2( I l. 5-2.l

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P.

E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive workplace bellm'ior: bll'l'sligariolls o(lIClors

and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: AP A.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S .. Penney, L. M .. Bruursema, K., Goh. A., & Kessler. S. (2006). The

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created

equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 68(3),446-460.

Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task Revision - A Neglected Form of Work

Performance. Academy of MQllQRement Journal. 33(3), 534-559.

Stevens, C. K. (1997). Effects of preinterview beliefs on applicants' reactions to campus

interviews. Academy of Management Journal. 40(4),947-966.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, l. (1994). Grounded Theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin.

K. & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-18). London:

Sage Publications.

225

Strauss, A, & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Re.l'mrch: Groullded 1I1(,(}/),

Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks CA: Sagc.

Strauss, A L., & Glaser, B. G. (1970). Anguish: a case hi.l'/orv o(a dyillg Irqil'clory. London:

Martin Robertson.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki

(Ed.), The psycho/(>!?y of ordinary explanatio/l of social hehm';or. London: Acadcmic

Press.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy (~r MOllogelllell1 Journal,

43, 178-190.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, 1., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators orlhe

relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fcllow

employees' attitudes. Journal of Appl;ed Psychology, 89(3),455-465.

Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition

effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789-796.

Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates'

procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Acat/£'IIIY o(

Management Journal, 46(1),97-105.

226

Thurstone, L. L. (1931). Measurement of social attitudes. journal oj'Ahnorll/illllnd Social

Psychology, 26,249-269.

Tieman, S. D., Flood, P.c.. Murphy, E.P., and Carroll, S.J. (200:!). Employce rc,u:tiolls to

flattening organizational structures. European joul'Ilill (I/, Work and Orgllnblliontll

Psychology. J J (I ).

Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. F. (2003). Collectivistic and individualistic values: Thcir

effects on group dynamics and productivity in China. Group Decision ant!

Negotiation. 12(3), 243-263.

Triandis. H. C. (1976). Some Universals of Social Behaviour. Paso/llIlit.\' (//1(1 Social

Psychology Bulletin. 4. 1-17.

Triandis. H. C. (1994). Culture and social behm'ior. New York: McGraw-Hili Inc.

Triandis. H. C. ( 1995). Individualism alld co/lectil'ism. San Francisco, C A: West view Press.

Triandis. H. c.. Bontempo. R.. Betancourt. H .. M .. B .• K .. L.. Brenes. A.. Georgas, J., Hui. C.

H.. Marin. G .• Setiadi. B .• Sinha. 1. P. B., Verma. J., Spangenberg, J.. Touzard. H .. &

Montmollin. G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and

collectivism across cultures. Australian journal of Psyc/wIORY. 31( 245-256.

227

Triandis, H. C, Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. 1., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (19l{X). Individualism

and Collectivism - Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self Ingroup Relationships.

journal of Personality and Social PsycholoK),. 54(2). :.tn-J3X.

Triandis, H. C, Chan, D. K.-S., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1l)l)5).

Multimethod probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. Internatiollal jOIl/'l/(/1 ot'

Psychology, 30(4),461 - 480.

Triandis, H. C, & Gelfand, M. 1. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. journal (~f Personality and Social Psychology. ?-I( I ),

118-128.

Triandis. H. C. Leung. K .• Villareal, M. J.. & Clack, F. I. (1985). AlIoccntric versus

idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. j01l1'll£l1 II/Res('arch

in Personality, 19(4),395-415.

Triandis, H. C, & SingeJis, T. M. (1998). Training to recognize individual differences in

collectivism and individualism within culture. International joumal (~f Imercllituml

Relations, 22(1), 35-47.

Turner, C. E, Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Stonenstein, F. L. (Il)l)X).

Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with

computer survey technology. Science, 280. 867- 873.

228

Turnipseed, D. L. (2002). Are good soldiers good? Exploring the link hctween organintlion

citizenship behavior and personal ethics. jourI/al (~f'Bu.l'il/e.l's Res('arch, 55( I l. I-I:'i.

Turnley. W. H.. & Bolino. M. C. (200 I). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired

images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. journal 01

Applied Psychology, 86(2). 351-360.

Van der Vegt. G. S .. Emans. B. 1. M .• & Van de Vliert. E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence

in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with joh and team

satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54( 1), 51-69.

Van Dyne. L.. & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational. citizenship behavior of contingent workers in

Singapore. Academy (if Management journal, 41 (6), 692-703.

Van Dyne. L.. Cummings, L. L., & Parks, 1. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of

construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters) In L. L. Cummings

& B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research ;n Organizational Behavior (Vol. Vol. 17 pp. 215

285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L.. & Ellis. 1. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on

organizational citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations In 1. A. M.

Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore. M. S. Taylor & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). The employml'1II

relationship: Examining psychological and contextual per.\pectivl's (pp. I HI·· 2(5).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

229

Van Dyne, L., Graham, 1. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizen~hip hehavior:

Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. AcadelllY II/,M(///{/gt'IIIt'1/I

journal. 4, 765-802.

Van Dyne, L., & lePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voiee extra-role behavior,: Evidence ()f

construct and predictive validity. Ac£uiemy (~f Management jourl/al, oj I, lOX 119.

Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle. D., Kostova. T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings. L. L. (2000).

Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational

citizenship in a non-work setting. journal (~fOrg{//li~(lti(}//{/1 Beha\'illr, 2/( 1).3-23.

Vandenberg, R. 1., Lance, C. E., & Taylor, S, C. (2005). A latcnt variable approach to rating

source equivalence: Who should provide ratings on organizational citizenship

dimensions? . In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), A handbook 1111 organi::.atiOl/{// cili:('IIshi,J

hehaviour: A review of 'good soldier' activity in organi=atio/lS (pp. 2lJ I ··.~3(). New

York: Nova Science Publishing.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of thl'

good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behm'io/l/',

36( I), 77-93

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of

compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace, journal (l B/Hille,\',\' and

Psychology, 2/(3),377-405.

230

Wageman. R. (1995). Interdependence and Group Etl'ectiveness. Admillistrutil'l' Scil'/1/'('

Quarterly. 40(1).145-180.

Wageman. R.. & Baker. G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and

reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Orgol/;;ot;O//(/llkl/l/l';or,

18(2). 139-158.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of Individualism-Collectivism - Effects on Cooperation in

Groups. Academy of Management Journal. 38( I). 152-172.

Wagner, J. A.. & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism - Concept and Measure.

Group & Organization Studies. 11(3),280-304.

Walumbwa, F. 0., & Lawler. 1. 1. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational

leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal hchaviours

in three emerging economies. international Journal of Human RI'S(}UrCl'

Management. 14(7), 1083-1101.

Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Actldl'lllY (~,.

Management Review. 28(4),622-632.

Wasti, S. A. (2003). The influence of cultural values on antecedents of organisational

commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied Psyc/to/twy-an /1l/ullati(l1wl

Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue /nternatiOlUlle. 52(4).533-554.

231

Wayne. S. 1.. & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence Tactics. Affect, and Exchange Quality in

Supervisor Subordinate Interactions - A laboratory Experiement and Field Study.

journal (~f Applied Psycho lox)', 75(5),487-499.

Wayne, S. 1., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of Impression Management on Performance

Ratings - A Longtitudinal Study. Academy ()f Mallllxelllellf journal, 38( I ). 232-260.

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-hased performance scale:

Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. AClIdemy of Man liRe mI'll ( journlll, -11(5).

540-555.

Werner, 1. M. (1994). Dimensions That Make a Difference - Examining the Impact of In-Rn\c

and Extrarole Behaviors on Supervisory Ratings. Journal of Applied PsycllOlogr,

79(1), 98-107.

Whitehead, L. C. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in internet-mediated research in

the field of health: an integrated review of the literature. Social Science lind Ml'l/ici1ll',

65(4),782-791.

Williams, E. A. (\ 999). A field experimental investigation of relationshipbased menloring

training in team settings and team characteristics: Effects on employee altitudes and

work outcomes. University of Miami.

232

Williams, L. 1., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors jou/'lw/ OrMIIllII,~I'IIII'lIf

17601-617.

Willig, C. (2004). Infroducing Qualitafil'e Research ill PscY/IO/ogy: At/I'Cl/f/'l/c.l· ill lhl'or.l' 1I1It!

method. Berkshire: Open University Press

Wong. A., Tjosvold, D. N., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Organizational partnerships in China: Sclf­

interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. JOllnwl ofApplil'l1 Psychologl',

90(4),782-791.

Workman, M. (2001). Collectivism, individualism. and cohesion in a team-hased occupation.

journal of Vocational Behavior, 58( 1), 82-97.

Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, 1. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniqlll.~ .. of

ingratiation in organizational settings .. In B. M. Slaw & G. R. Salancik (Ed ... ). Nt'II'

directiolls in organi':.ational behavior (pp. 133--178). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Xie, J. L., & Johns. G. (2000). Interactive effects of ahsence culture salience and group

cohesiveness: A multi-level and cross-level analysis of work ahsenteeism in the

Chinese context. Journal of Occupational alld OrgallizaliolllJI p.I'yc/lology, 73.31-52.

Yeung, I. Y. M., & Tung. R. L. (1996). Achieving business Success in Confucian s(x:ietics:

The Importantance of Guanxi (Connections) Organizational DYlIllmics, N(3). 54-Cl5.

233

Youngman, M. B. (1979). Analysing Social and educational research data. London: McGraw­

Hill.

Zahavi. A. (1977). Reliability in communication systems and the evolution of altruism. In B.

S. house & c. M. Perrins (Eds.). Evolutionary ecolog\' (pp. 253 259). London:

Macmillan.

Zellars, K. L.. Tepper. B. 1.. & Duffy. M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates'

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. X7(6). I06X-

1076.

Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A .• Carlson. D. S., & Bratton. V. K. (2004). Interactive

effects of impression management and organizational politics on job performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5).627-640.

234

Appendix 1

Interview Schedule for Study 1

The purpose of my research is to investigate employees' performance of organisational

citizenship behaviours. They have been described as productive work behaviours that go ahow

and beyond the call of an employee's duties; they are typically directed towards their co­

workers or the organization. Employees who perform these behaviours are thought to he gmt!

citizens within the organisation, who perform at levels above what is formally re<.juired.

I. In relation to that definition do you think you can give an example that would lit with

the definition?

Prompt: It can be something that you have seen another employee perform

Prompt: They can include behaviours such as working weekends, helping your co­

workers

2. Why do you think _____ is an example of organisational citizenship

behaviour?

3. Why did you perform ?

or

Why do you think they performed ____ ?

4. So when you did ___ what were the outcomes for you?

235

Prompt: Short term and Long term outcomes

Prompt: Any positive/negative outcomes

5. What were the outcomes for the organisation?

6. Can you give me another example that you think would lit with the organisational

citizenship behaviours definition?

236

Appendix 2

OCB and Impression Management Scenarios from Study 2

237

Scenario One

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine that in the organisation you work for, there is a co-worker who seems to take an

interest in your supervisor's personal life and compliments them on their appeilrance.

Do you

think your

co-worker' s

behaviour

is:

A producti ve behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

call of duty for an employee

2

Between the Used in an efror t to inllucncc

two the per eptiolls other have of

statements himlher

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following quest.ions

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will benefit the

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other

employees in the organisation?

Not at aU

238

2 3

2 3

2 3

4

4

4

A great

deal

5

5

5

Scenario Two

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine that in the organisation you work for, you know that your co-worker arrives early to work

to prepare for the day and know that he/she is willing to come in early to work if required.

Do you

think your

co-worker's

behaviour

is:

A producti ve behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

ca ll of duty for an employee

2

Between the Used in an effort to inOuence

two the perc pt ions other have of

statements him/her

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following questions

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will benefit the

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other

employees in the organisation?

Not at all

2

2

2

239

3 4

3 4

3 4

A great

deal

5

5

5

Scenario Three

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine that in the organisation you work for, you have noticed that your co-worker makes the

results of the tasks they are responsible for sound better than they actually are

A producti ve behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

call of duty for an employee

Between the Used in an effort 10 innucncc

Do you

think your

co-worker's

behaviour

is:

2

two the percepti ons olher have of

statements himlher

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following questions

Not at all A great

deal

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve 2 3 4 5

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will beneftt the 1 2 3 4 5

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other 2 3 4 5

employees in the organisation?

240

Scenario Four

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine that in the organisation you work for, you know that your co-worker tries to encourage people

to try new ways to improve their performance and suggests new ways to improve the company.

Do you

think your

co-worker's

behaviour

is:

A productive behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

call of duty for an employee

2

Between the U ed in an effort to influence

two the perceptions other have of

statements him/her

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following questions

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will benefit the

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other

employees in the organisation?

Not at aU

241

2

2

2

3 4

3 4

3 4

A great

deal

5

5

5

Scenario Five

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine tbat in the organisation you work for your co·worker tends to agree witb tbe supervisor's

opinion wben talking face·to·face, even tbougb you bave beard himlher disagree with this opinion when

the supervisor is not there.

Do you

think your

co-worker's

behaviour

Is:

A productive behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

call of duty for an employee

2

Between the Used in an effort to influence

two the perception. other have of

statements hi mlher

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following questions

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will benefit the

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other

employees in the organisation?

Not at aU

2

2

2

242

3 4

3 4

3 4

A great

deal

5

5

5

Scenario Six

Read the scenario below and answer the question that follow them

Imagine that in the organisation you work for, your co-worker will offers or has offered to help

you or other co-workers when you or they have a heavy workload or ifyoulthey have been

absent.

A productive behaviour that

goes above and beyond the

call of duty for an employee

Between the Used in an effort to influence

Do you

think your

co-worker's

behaviour

is:

2

two the perceptions other have of

statements himlher

3 4 5

Still in relation to the scenario above, please answer the following questions

To what extent do you think

their actions will help improve

organisational performance

To what extent do you think

this behaviour will benefit the

co-worker?

To what extent do you think

their action will benefit other

employees in the organisation?

Not at all

2

2

2

243

3 4

3 4

3 4

A great

deal

5

5

5